Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Quint weighs in on WATCHMEN!

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with my thoughts on WATCHMEN. I must preface this with a couple of things. First off, I will be discussing some specific spoilers, but I’ll make sure to hit those at the end of the review so if you don’t want to know you can be fairly certain of not hitting any huge spoilers through the main review. Secondly, this review needs to be taken in with a certain context. Much like Alan Moore and David Gibbons’ original comics, the movie is dense and packed to the gills with visual information, so my thoughts are first impressions. I’m eager to see it a second time to see what holds up, what is clarified and what, if anything, has less impact. I had to do the same with The Dark Knight, actually. So many layers, so much foreshadowing and ambiguous character development… that I had to see it a second time to actually explore the world presented on the screen. Now, WATCHMEN isn’t as good as THE DARK KNIGHT. I don’t think anyone can successfully argue that DARK KNIGHT is lesser filmmaking than WATCHMEN, but both share one common bond. They shouldn’t exist in this over-homogenized, lowest common denominator studio system that dictates what is made. DARK KNIGHT is the very first comic book movie to take the ludicrous and completely ground it in reality. Others have come close, but it was Dark Knight that reached the finish line completely. The villain was dark, the structure was uncommon, there were real threats, real deaths and true ambiguity in the villains and heroes alike. WATCHMEN is a near 3 hour long adaptation of one of the most dense and layered stories in the history of comic books. It’s a $100 million R-rated studio picture that keeps almost everything that people have been saying for two decades now would never ever make it into a movie. The gore, graphic violence, graphic sex, the comic’s structure, the foul language, the bleak ending, a main villain that is possibly the hero of the book depending on how you look at things, the blue genitalia and the overall grayness of character all survive in the context of what the book demands: an epic spectacle. I know there are those who would argue with me on that, but don’t misunderstand me. Spectacle isn’t what the book was about, but it’s very much part of the world. Can you imagine a film version without Mars? Can you imagine one without Antarctica? Or without the world-changing plot coming to fruition? In order for the characters to have the impact they were intended to we need to recognize them in a world of superheroes. In the comic it was a familiar comic world these radically different and flawed characters inhabited. They represented known comic archetypes and turned them on their heads. So, without the big budget spectacle the characters couldn’t exist in the film version of that world. Instead of just carrying over the comic book references, Zack Snyder also implements film references, which is probably why you can make allusions to Batman & Robin with Ozymandias’ nipple suit and why Nite Owl looks more like the Nolan Batman in costume than he does in the book. I think it’s amazing this film exists at all and is as close to the material as it is. I don’t think it’s flawless, I don’t think every part of the film works, but all that aside I’m still kind of dumbfounded that I watched this movie and that it’s coming out on many thousands of screens. For the first 20 minutes of the movie, I wasn't very involved. I noticed this when they showed the opening at BNAT, but I got the same feeling seeing it in context of the whole movie. I was detached. For the first 20 minutes I found myself just waiting to see the next scene from the comics come to life. I found it beautiful and well done. The world is gritty, real. The characters are true to form, almost to a fault. When you see the old Minutemen time the costumes do seem fucking ridiculous, but that’s the intention. I loved seeing the world realized, but I did have the disconnect that I still can’t quite put my finger on. I don’t know if I felt that because I knew the material and was anticipating the next moment or if there’s something missing in the connecting tissues or if I just needed that first reel to settle into the world. I still don’t know, which is one of the reasons why I look forward to revisiting the film. Since this is an ensemble, I’m going to go down a list of actors and characters and give you my brief thoughts on them. Jeffrey Dean Morgan/The Comedian - Morgan is actually great in this role, which is one of the toughest in the cast. He’s a despicable character, someone really hard to relate to, but Morgan somehow gets you cheering for this character at certain moments, even after you know how soiled he is as a person. It must have been hard for him to walk that line, but he pulled it off. I hate his old age make-up, though. It looks like they just brought in Edward James Olmos to play old Comedian for the opening. Carla Gugino/Silk Spectre I – Beautiful as always and fantastic in the flashbacks, but I think her old age make-up hurts her in the “current” scenes. It really is just terrible, looking like someone just smeared silly putty on her face. I think the Sally Jupiter/Laurie Jupiter relationship is also undercut a tad. I’m curious to see if there’s more in the longer cuts. Malin Akerman/Silk Spectre II – Akerman is gorgeous and generous with her sensuality, so that’s much appreciated. I don’t think she’s bad in the role at all, but I’d say of the cast she’s the weakest link. I know a lot of my friends had a lot of trouble with her line delivery, but it didn’t bug me. Ultimately, she embraces the strength and vulnerability of Laurie that is crucial to making her relationships with Dr. Manhattan and Nite Owl work, so I wouldn’t say she’s miserable in the role. Billy Crudup/Dr. Manhattan – Jon Osterman is probably the most fascinating character in the story. A man who becomes a superpowered being in a world where there is none of his like. What happens when you become a God? How much humanity do you lose when you are no longer human, but your essence is retained? Billy Crudup is fantastic here, really acting through the effect. Crudup and Jackie Earle Haley are the two masterstrokes of casting of the movie, I feel. Crudup brings so much to every movement and his vocal performance is spot on. The second part to his performance, the digital representation of Manhattan, is well executed, too. There are only a couple of shots that really stood out to me as being digital. The rest of the time my brain was fooled into believing this radiant blue figure wasn’t a whole bunch of 1s and 0s and really there on the screen. Patrick Wilson/Nite Owl – Wilson really captures Dan Dreiberg’s uncertainty, his inner turmoil and quiet self-loathing. You almost get a feeling that Dan is punishing himself unconsciously for hanging up the costume while his conscious mind spends most of the day trying to convince him that he’s happy… living alone, in a world going to shit. He’s got the gut (although, admittedly not as pronounced as in the comic), the posture, the horrible glasses and the personality from the comic, but what’s more important is that he sells the transition, the excitement and the feeling of being alive once more when he puts the costume back on. It’s a rather thankless, but crucial role in a cast of flashier characters. Matthew Goode/Ozymandias – Probably the most scrutinized of them all in the lead up to release. I wasn’t sold on Goode in the role, but he did surprise me in the film. He has a near impossible task and I’ll get to that here in a bit, but he succeeds in bringing the Adrian Veidt from the comic to the screen in his performance. There will be those who frown upon his casting just for the fact that he should have been a more traditional Superman type full of charm and muscle. I see that, but it’s also been done. Look at Kinnear in MYSTERY MEN. Unfortunately, other films have stolen that concept before Watchmen could be made. I will say that I think if Snyder had been able to cast Tom Cruise in the role it would have been genius… not because Cruise could have delivered a better performance than Goode did, but because of the baggage that Cruise brings with him as an actor. Jackie Earle Haley/Rorschach – Haley is the star of the movie as far as I’m concerned. He swings for the fences with the fan-favorite role of the dark anti-hero Rorschach and hits a home run. Haley brings everything he has to this role and makes the impossible happen. He made me wish that Walter Kovacs stayed Walter Kovacs after he’s unmasked in the film. I wish he hadn’t gotten his “face” back. I never in a million years would have thought that I’d want more Rorschach without the mask, but Haley was so stellar without it that I wanted more. If Snyder got nothing else right, the fact that he nailed Rorschach so dead on would be his saving grace. But Snyder did come to this film with his A-game. I’ve seen arguments in the talkbacks about how he was not the right director for this material and I don’t understand it. If he tried to make this film like 300, all CG and machismo or even if he tried to make it like his DAWN OF THE DEAD remake, with the shakey cam and total reinvention of the original material then I’d be right there with you guys, but that’s not how he approached this film. In fact, I’d argue no one but Snyder could have made this film. Wait, wait… put those pitchforks and nooses away. I don’t mean that Snyder is the best director in the world or even the most interesting choice for this material. What I’m saying is that in the real world of filmmaking, there is nobody out there with the power and pull to have made a film like this, at this level, with the intent of keeping it as true to the source material as he did. It’s kind of a perfect storm situation. Warners was going forward with this and had just made a shit-ton of money on 300, an R-rated comic book adaptation. If Snyder had not made that film or if 300 hadn’t been so popular… or if 300 had been watered down to a PG-13… we wouldn’t be here today. Snyder never would have gotten offered the movie and even if he had been he never in a million years would have been in the position to strong-arm the studio into making it so long, with an R-rating and true to the tone, spirit and specifics of the comic. Visually, he’s done an amazing job. The slow motion isn’t over-used, but when he does use it he does it for a reason. I remember reading somewhere that Snyder said he’s using slow motion in this film as a way to make it feel more like the audience is reading the comic and it’s absolutely true. He slow motions on the splash pages or half-splashes… the incredible moments where you’d stop reading and take a moment to admire Dave Gibbons’ awesome work. Every moment where there’s slow motion I felt was picked specifically to reflect that feeling. He might have been blowing smoke up our asses, but watching the movie I couldn’t agree with his visual choices more. I think some of this cues are a bit off… he picks some great ‘70s and ‘80s music… everything from Jimi Hendrix to Simon & Garfunkel and a perfect song for the… erotic... moment on-board Archie… I won’t ruin it here, but it’s a great pick. Some of them feel perfect, but others feel unneeded. I know All Along the Watch Tower is mentioned in the graphic novel, but it felt a little out of place where Snyder chose to put it in the movie. In many ways I feel the film suffers a little from being too true to the comic. And this circles around to a point I brought up when talking about Matthew Goode’s performance as Ozymandias. Now would be a good time to stop reading if you’re wanting to steer clear of spoilers. I’ll be talking a lot about the end of the movie below. You have been warned. Matthew Goode has the most difficult part of the film, which has been a question on the mind of Watchmen fans since the very first attempt at adapting the material… How do you wrap everything up without making it 10 straight minutes of exposition as it is in the comic. In The Incredibles they call it monologing, where the villain has to explain his whole plot to the heroes and that’s the responsibility Goode has to shoulder here and while he did it the best he could it still feels like it slams the brakes and forces us to examine every part of his plot, even the most farfetched. I can’t offer up any ideas on how to avoid this, but it is a problem… however, it’s a problem that is brought directly over from the comic, so I doubt you’ll see much discussion about that from the fans. What you will see continuing on is the squid debate. That has been raging since the first indication that Snyder didn’t include the squid in the film and will continue on as long as there are fans that have breath. Now I’m seriously going to be discussing specifics on the ending, stuff that isn’t in the comics, so if you don’t want to know, please don’t continue on. Adrian’s goals are the same. He wants to create a worldwide catastrophe that ends the cold war and the probability of mankind’s ultimate destruction. How he does it has changed and the knee-jerk is to think it doesn’t work. I thought that as it was happening onscreen, but the more time I’ve had with it, the more I’ve thought about it the more I love it. Essentially, Adrian gives everybody a common enemy, just as he does in the comic. But instead of aliens, it’s Dr. Manhattan. He replicates Manhattan’s energy, with Manhattan’s unwitting help no less, and uses it to destroy strategic places. The arguments so far against this are real and understandable. Why wouldn’t the rest of the world assume Manhattan was working on behalf of the US? Why wouldn’t they still launch against the US in retaliation without thinking it over? They don’t expressly say it, but the impression I got is Adrian picked strategic points for his devastation. Sure, there are the high population centers all over the world, but he also targeted every nuclear site. The assumption is that he literally eradicated all the nukes so there’s no knee-jerk launch possible. But more importantly, what brings the world together is the fear of a vengeful God, not aliens. And that is the part that I love. The arms race doesn't continue because Manhattan seems to be so omniscient that everyone is afraid to develop such technology. They took something in Dr. Manhattan’s character already and really underlined it. Since so much of Manhattan’s character is his struggle to retain any sort of humanity while wielding the power of a God I think it was a fascinating choice to play that up and it’s a choice that puts character first, which I think most fans will be able to appreciate. What sells it to me is a line that Nite Owl has at the end of the movie when asked if he thinks everything will be all right now. He says something like, “As long as they think Jon’s still watching them, I think we’ll be okay.” Is it more typical to have little blue blasts going off instead of an alien invasion replicated? Sure. I, like the rest of you, would love to see that on the big screen if, for no other reason, to see something I’ve never seen before. But what they replaced it with works, not just for the story but for the characters. The complexity of the material is still there, the shades of gray in every character, good or bad, is still there. The bizarre alternate reality is still there. The comic’s flashback structure is still there. All the main character motivations are still there. I frankly am shocked that the problems I have with a studio-made Watchmen movie are essentially nit-picks. I hate the old age make-up on Gugino and Morgan. I think the Nixon make-up is ridiculous. I don’t like some of the song placement in the movie… some of the connecting tissues seem to be… slight… Malin Akerman is just okay as Laurie. Is that really all? Maybe I’ll find more to dislike upon my second viewing, but here’s where I stand on the film at this current moment. This is my first impression. I can say without any doubt whatsoever that everybody will worship Jackie Earle Haley’s Rorschach. I could watch a 3 hour movie of just Rorschach in prison and be the happiest boy on earth. He’s that good. Maybe I’ll have a better opinion on the overall vision when I see Snyder’s all-in cut, where Hollis has a full character and not a one-scene introduction, where the Black Freighter mirrors the world we’re experiencing and we get to have the kid and grumpy bastard at the newsstand pulled out of the background and more into the foreground. Right now I can’t really judge the lack of those scenes since I know they’re filmed and will be in a longer cut in the very near future. So, count me onboard with this one. There are things that have been changed that I don’t mind. It doesn’t bother me that the group they formed was called the Watchmen, it doesn’t bother me that The Comedian assassinated JFK… that fits with his character and only goes to give him more reason to be in the position he’s in when we first meet him… namely falling from a skyrise. If you think that stuff really will get to you, then you might have a different opinion than I do. But that’s where I stand. Damn, that was quite a lengthy review. Sorry for being so long-winded, but I had a lot to say about this one. I now need to pack up for WonderCon in San Francisco. I’ll be there from Thursday through Monday morning. If you’re attending, drop me an email. Depending on my schedule there should be some hang-out time available. -Quint

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Feb. 24, 2009, 6:34 p.m. CST


    by roberthorry

    Movie should be greattt.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Mandatory First Post

    by roberthorry


  • Feb. 24, 2009, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Can't Stop

    by roberthorry

    Won't Stop.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 6:36 p.m. CST

    On A Serious Note

    by roberthorry

    I think Jackie Earle Haley/Rorschach is going to knock this out of the park. He was absolutely incredible in "Little Children". I think he's going to bring that strange, eerie nature to Rorschach.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 6:36 p.m. CST


    by Sovikos

    It looks like a Rated-R Batman and Robin, lol Fucking Nipple suits

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 6:48 p.m. CST

    I wonder if the studio gamble will work

    by FluffyUnbound

    If this movie makes bank, then Snyder will pretty much have singlehandedly dragged the R-rated mainstream release back into our lives. If this movie fails, I think we can assume that PG-13 will triumph, and stomp its boots into our faces, forever.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 6:50 p.m. CST

    Oh and about the monologue

    by FluffyUnbound

    I thought that with Veidt it was supposed to be a joke - that it appeared that he was monologuing, but he actually wasn't - because he had already triggered the squid "35 minutes ago". If the 35 minutes ago part is still there, it's not monologuing in the Incredibles sense.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 6:52 p.m. CST

    I dunno about this...

    by HBO

    I was pumped for it, now after seeing all those promos I'm really not. The action just looks so fake and stereotypical... Hmm

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 6:54 p.m. CST

    Wow. In before "SQUID!"

    by bonecrushersmith

    I've never been up this high, especially for a Watchmen talkback. Sounds awesome.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 6:56 p.m. CST


    by Quint

    You're right on with that. It's that line that really makes it worth it. I just feel the forward momentum stop completely with this scene. That's the problem I have with it.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 6:56 p.m. CST


    by fiester

    But sounds like they nailed Rorshach, so that's cool. I will look forward to the big director's cut version DVD.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 6:56 p.m. CST

    Uhhm, yeah...

    by Kid Z

    ...Snyder changed the entire focus and resolution of the narrative by deleting the squid. No wonder Alan Moore's so grumpy.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 6:58 p.m. CST

    Haters Weeping, Wailing With Grief, With Nothing To Hate

    by LaserPants

    Can you hear it? They'll be here soon to express their hate for a film they haven't even seen, but is getting rave reviews. Also: expect them there opening weekend, for several "hate" filled viewings.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 6:58 p.m. CST

    Old-Age makeup...

    by MCVamp

    I think the harsh clarity of a digital recording (and more often these days, digital presentation) makes it harder to pull off certain effects now, aging makeup and CG effects being the biggest challenges. I'm sure there's nothing in Watchmen that didn't stand out in Benjamin Button.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 6:58 p.m. CST

    Not as good as TDK but V. Good.

    by G100

    Seems reasonable, after all The Dark Knight Returns Comic is very good indeed but not as good as the Watchmen Comic.<p> <p>Clearly well worth a watch as Rorschach was always going to dominate the Movie and if he's as good as it looks that alone is worth multiple viewings.<p> <p>Big Blue Bangs doesn't bode well though, and I'll have to watch it myself but I was hoping Snyder would realise that scene needs REAL Horror and Shock and Big Blue Bangs don't seem to cut it.<p> <p>Definitely well worth seeing though and as always the Comic isn't going anywhere so even the Terminally Disappointed can reread it.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7 p.m. CST



    This is the earliest i have managed to get a comment in on one of these talk backs:P i have no doubt in my mind i will really enjoy this film, and no doubt it will pull in at the very LEAST 80 some odd million opening weekend.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:01 p.m. CST

    Alan Moore..

    by HBO

    The guy is grumpy in general. I'm of the opinion that if the movie was made exactly the same as the source material Moore would still despise it. I still think he would have made a bad ass Rorschach voice, watch him reading those lines on youtube.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:01 p.m. CST

    Ah fuck, Quint. I've been posting all day...

    by BiggusDickus in Eng-er-land.<p>Too pissed and too tired to read thru' all the detritus my man. <p>I'm off to bed. Just tell me - was it ok?

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:04 p.m. CST

    And Ozy just joins the dots in his exposition

    by G100

    In the Comic it's already hinted at showing the Island and the scenes where Ozy makes up his mind. In his exposition Ozy is really explaining his motivation far more clearly as well as the specifics of how it was implemented. And not just the "I already did it" (which is brilliant) but he reduces the entire exposition into a sentence too. Mooore was well aware Ozy was "monologuing" in that scene.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:05 p.m. CST

    Naomi Klein will...

    by maliswan

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:05 p.m. CST

    Have a field day...

    by maliswan

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:08 p.m. CST

    I'm watching it on IMAX!

    by SkeletonParty

    I love the idea of Tom Cruise in the Adrian role.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:10 p.m. CST

    One thing I haven't really seen discussed

    by G100

    The Rorschach "reveal" which is superbly foreshadowed in the Comic.<p> <p>I hope that Snyder has at least done that as well with copious scenes of ***SPOILER** "The End is Nigh" man.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:10 p.m. CST


    by Quint

    I don't mean to give the impression that there's no grandeur to the catastrophe. There definitely is. The pacing, visuals and sound design make for a very memorable scene, but it isn't the horror show as it was in the comics. That's definitely right and like I said in the review I would have loved to have seen that, but if it's a choice between what Snyder picked here and we get more time with Rorschach and Laurie and Dan or explaining the squid, I would have made the same choice Snyder did. Maybe the studio will give Snyder the money to do the squid version for a future cut if this flick is hugely popular? That'd be pretty great, but I won't hold my breath.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:16 p.m. CST

    yer mama and G100

    by Quint

    G100 - Yes, End is Nigh abounds.<BR><BR>Yer Mama, I agree wholeheartedly with the password problem, but again... that comes from the comic. It's a fault brought over from the existing material, which you can still call out, of course, but it's a mistake made in the name of being true to the book. As far as The Comedian, they don't directly address it, but they do mention that he was working for Nixon investigating Adrian when he stumbled across the plan. I don't think it's important how he knows so much as it's important that he did and the knowledge caused an already cracked man to break. Because he must have seen the same logic that Adrian did. That's what I took away at any rate.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:18 p.m. CST

    Moriarty goes berserk about the film here:

    by FluffyUnbound Kurt Lockwood might find this interesting.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:18 p.m. CST

    I've never read Watchmen and know nothing about it

    by BadMrWonka

    I really wonder what my experience is going to be like next to a friend of mine who is the hugest Watchmen fanatic ever. I had planned to read it, but then I knew the movie was coming out and thought it would be more interesting to see it first, and then read it, since so many people are going to be doing it the other way around (that's what she said)<p> so Quint, what do you think about us Watchmen noobs? is there a certain feel to this, as a fairly faithful adaptation, that's going to miss up completely? or will it work for everyone?

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:19 p.m. CST

    So is the 35 minutes line in it then or not?

    by Gabba-UK

    Just curious.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:23 p.m. CST

    I completely disagree on TDK

    by xsi kal

    But I'm looking forward to seeing this.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:24 p.m. CST

    Bad and Gabba

    by Quint

    BadMrWonka - To be honest, the people I know that didn't know the material seemed to like it more than those who did. Maybe they had lower expectations because of that, but I only know a couple of people that didn't know Watchmen that saw it at the Alamo screening and they all liked it with fewer qualms than those who knew the material... I think that also takes away some of the problems I was having getting into the cinematic world at the beginning because they weren't waiting for certain scenes, just following the story.<BR><BR>Gabba, it's in and it plays great... second only to "You've got it wrong. I'm not trapped in here with you. You're trapped in here with me!" Which had explosive applauding and cheering in our theater.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:24 p.m. CST

    Grandeur sounds alot better. Ta Quint

    by G100

    It IS after all the climax and culmination of the entire plot Rorschach is struggling to uncover so it's essential it hits hard even if it ain't squiddy. Big Blue Bangs would be shorthand then as indeed is squiddy.<p> <p>I wondered just how Horrific Snyder COULD make it as I suspect wiping out a large chunk of a city (or indeed several) just might not "fly" in the present world, so he's saved the Horror for other scenes it appears. meh. Again it wouldn't be my choice but I still definitely want to see this, regardless and I too am still hugely fucking impressed that something even close to the original is on the Big Screen TBH.<p> <p>I would love to see Snyder try squiddy as I think "unfilmable" is thrown about far too casually.<p> <p>I can see the scene in my minds eye personally but realising it on screen would be incredibly hard and the tone and pace of it would be a nightmare to get right.<p> <p>A future cut sounds good to me but you can't just "teleport" squiddy in *cough* to the Movie you would need copious pick-ups and reshoots and new scenes to make it "fit".<p> <p>Though I'd be open to just a DVD extra that was nothin but Squid. Just that one scene. We can dream anyway. ;-)

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:25 p.m. CST

    Jackie Earle Haley will be Krueger

    by ThePilgrim

    if not Screw Platinum Dunes...

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:29 p.m. CST

    Their both in!!!

    by Gabba-UK

    Cool!! Those lines are now going to be up there with best of them. 'Your only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!!!' 'No Mr. Bond I expect you to die!!' And for you Quint of course, 'Your gonna need a bigger boat..."

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:33 p.m. CST

    shoulda been a 12 part mini on HBO

    by Six Demon Bag

    alas im sure this will fit the bill

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:34 p.m. CST

    removing aliens

    by sokitome

    DRastically alters the story. The plot was supposed to be so ridiculous it works, hence comedian calling it a "joke". PLUS it's not just the threat that convinces everyone it's the sense of not being alone in the universe. The idea that humanity has to band together against others existing out there. It's a fundamental shift in philosophy. By making it Dr. Manhattan you just made it another human terrorist, although superhuman it's still not a RACE of DOC MANHATTANS. I CAN'T believe someone who writes about movies and comics for living doesn't see how fundamentally different that is. It completely takes away from the scope and themes of the book. It's about how aburdity can work. The world is ridiculous, the heroes are ridiculous, the plan is ridiculous but it works. I will see the movie but to say the ending is the same is to say dumbing the story down is ok which I don't think it is. I had more respect for QUINT but that assessment is ridiculous and wrong and I think Moore would agree.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Quint that was a completely fair review

    by drturing

    Thanks much.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:40 p.m. CST

    Just realised that I've had a question answered directly...

    by Gabba-UK

    from a blackbox for the first time....... Why does that make me feel as giddy as I will be when in the queue to see the film?????

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:41 p.m. CST

    A few questions Quint

    by drturing

    It sounds like you said it undoubtedly nails the "spectacle" aspect of such an epic story. How do you think it'll age and hold up or is it far too early to say? And furthermore, what was it about the dark knight you think was better?

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:46 p.m. CST


    by Quint

    I hear what you're saying, but what's more ridiculous than a giant naked blue God? I think you're having trouble seeing the forest for the trees a little here. Would the original have worked better? Of course it would have, but in this medium it's impossible without sacrificing something more important and that's the character building. The impact is the same and the logic still works... and it plays totally into Manhattan's character. It might not be better, but I don't find it to be a lesser idea than what came before. Maybe you'll feel the same when you see the movie or maybe not. That's why this comic has lived for so long. People have their own interpretations of what is going on, different things grab them. I never took the alien thing to mean exactly what you find it means to the story, but that doesn't mean I'm right. It's my interpretation of the material is all.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:47 p.m. CST

    This review reeks of someone...

    by HoboCode

    desperately wanting to like the film and overlooking its flaws. In other words, it's getting a pass where others would not.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:51 p.m. CST

    its time to give zack snyder the credit he deserves i think

    by BMacSmith

    he perfectly nailed the stylishness of 300 and seems to have done a good job with this one, too. good for him.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:51 p.m. CST

    No thanks

    by ebonic_plague

    Glad you liked it, sounds like I won't. And since there's nothing more to say, I'll just stay out of these talkbacks. I think I'll just re-read the comic again.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:52 p.m. CST


    by Quint

    I can't tell you how it'll age. The effects are great today, with only one or two shots of Manhattan feeling like computer effect to me. Who knows what it'll look like in 20 years? The dinos in Jurassic Park still look amazing, but most other CG from the early and mid-90s doesn't hold up. I can't say. Visually, it's striking and I think it'll always be striking in the same way that the Sindbad movies have a striking look, even though they don't use the same Harryhausen effects much anymore.<BR><BR>Dark Knight didn't have to introduce the characters, except for the Joker, which is a big plus. It starts off strong and keeps the pace. Plus the score was better. heh... I think Dark Knight as a cinematic experience just felt more inclusive. I was drawn in immediately and stayed there the whole way through. I think not knowing the story was a big part of that. Also there was a streamlined quality to it that Watchman can't have by the very nature of adapting the material. I'm sure there's more to it, but that's what comes to mind at the moment.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:52 p.m. CST


    by drewlicious

    What online columnist is he referring to in his review anyway?

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 7:56 p.m. CST

    Damn Quint

    by Flying Spaghetti Monster

    you worked your ass off today

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 8:06 p.m. CST

    Sound great Quint man!

    by Power_Girl

    I have started a countdown now for this.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 8:07 p.m. CST

    filling in the blanks

    by menstrual_blitz

    Movie representations of rape almost always wind up being controversial as it's a fine line to walk--showing the act to be offensive while not producing an exploitative representation of it--but the reviews barely mention it...except for Harry's, which has me nervous. As do the 'we had to fill in the blanks but don't worry it'll be brutal' bits of news that have been floating around. <p> Any way you could elaborate on how that scene's handled by Snyder?

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 8:08 p.m. CST

    but is it better than mimic: sentinal?

    by FamousEccles

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 8:16 p.m. CST

    Manhattan is PASSIVE! passive passive passive

    by G100

    Sorry but it really bugs me that everyone falls into the "it suits to have Manhattan do it."<p> <p>It might work as a FRAME UP but the entire comic pretty much shouts in your face that Osterman and Manhattan's character is passive.<p> <p>He does what other people tell him to do. From his father to Janey to the Government to Nixon. He just goes along with it EVEN when he knows it's morally indefensible in Molochs lair and Nam. He just doesn't care.<p> <p>When he is personally attacked he doesn't shout "I'll kill you all!" but "Leave me alone!" If Manhattan had a fraction of the psychotic willpower of Rorschach or Ozy he would have remade the World from his "rebirth" and we would have had a very different story.<p> <p>So yes, as a figure of unbridled power and suspicion Manhattan works but NOT as a character who would actually DO what Snyders has framed him up to do. It's totally against his character.<p> <p>That said we'll see how it's carried off but it's certainly not going to stop me watching the Movie even if it does annoy me.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 8:17 p.m. CST

    You know how I know I'm a geek?

    by tbransonlives

    I'm drving 90 miles to watch this on Imax.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 8:21 p.m. CST

    tdk had uncommon structure????

    by bacci40

    it was linear storytelling at its finest...and it wasnt a batman was a cop movie with batman, the joker and two face shoehorned in<P> which is why nolan succeeded<P> but wayne is still wayne, playing dressupe to catch criminals...not once in the movie does one get the feeling that wayne has lost touch with reality...unlike say, a character like rorshach<p> as for watchmen...the fears most of us had when it came to casting were always right...the age of the actors was wrong, but it does bug me that with the fx now, there was no way to age the characters properly<p> as for nixon, quint take a look at the book again...nixon really doesnt look like the nixon that we i guess that is why snyder allowed his nixon to appear a bit absurd

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 8:22 p.m. CST


    by slone13

    <p>Does the fat kid eating the burger with the smiley face on his shirt reach for Rorschach's journal???!?!</p> <p>C'MON, DOES HE?!??!</p>

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 8:23 p.m. CST

    oh...and let me add this

    by bacci40


  • Feb. 24, 2009, 8:28 p.m. CST


    by bacci40

    snyder is trying to say that the people of the watchmen world are as stupid as the viewers of the movie<p> they will be ignorant of the docs seeming lack of care for the world, and will buy into that he has now become a vengeful god....forget the fact that it makes no sense...CUZ IT LOOKS FUCKING COOL

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 8:32 p.m. CST

    I think what we all really want to know is...

    by chiwrtr72

    When do you think the Broadway musical version of the Watchmen will debut and will the Squid be in it???

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 8:42 p.m. CST

    but QUINT

    by sokitome

    "The impact is the same and the logic still works" the point of my post was that it isn't the same and it doesn't work because of the idea behind the threat isn't the same. It's not just a threat, it's change in the way people think. The acknowledgement of sentient intelligent life would be monumental in the way everyone views the world. Adding on top of that an intelligent alien race that wants to invade our planet and it turns into something even bigger. Doc Manhattan is just one person. Regardless of how powerful he is, his existence and threat doesn't change how everyone views the world and ourselves. A threat from Aliens that we did not know existed would be drastically different. I may be getting too metaphysical here but THE GN was totally metaphysical. That was the point. The ending as describe just dumbs it down to the mundane...sorry it's just my opinion...but maybe i will change my mind after seeing it, which I will day one.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 8:45 p.m. CST

    Expectations rising again...

    by DarthCorleone

    First I was very excited by the trailers. Then those clips we saw had me dreading the movie. (I still think the acting and characters are for the most part flat therein; maybe placing them in context does make a major difference.) And now, I can't see this soon enough again.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 8:46 p.m. CST

    Sokitome... but it does change the way people think

    by chiwrtr72

    Now suddenly a God. Not a God that people can debate the existence of but an actual, Old Testament "I will kick your ass"-type God. That would change my atheist ways and get my butt to the altar of the Blue Man Group... er Manhattan.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 8:52 p.m. CST

    destroying the nukes

    by illegaltouching

    It's not fair to analyze this without seeing the movie, but if all the nukes were destroyed with "Dr. Manhattan power" why to you also have to take out the major cities too? Who cares if the world is united if there's no threat of World War III? (I realize this is the Superman Quest for Peace plot).

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 8:53 p.m. CST


    by sokitome

    BUT he's not a God. In the GN the general public knows about how he became Doc Manhattan, I think please correct me if I'm wrong it's been a loooooong time since i've read it. If he is a god then wouldn't people worship him like you said you would instead of banding together and fighting him? People still knows he is human who was in an accident.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 8:57 p.m. CST

    G100 and bacci...

    by DarthCorleone

    I hear what you're saying, but - as you say - the framing is plausible even if it is inconsistent with Manhattan's passivity. How well does the common man truly know Manhattan's character? His dashing off to Mars at least shows a recent trend for unpredictability. Do they know him well enough to see thousands of people slaughtered seemingly by his hand and call it a bluff? Or is it plausible that people could irrationally give into their fears of someone with Godlike powers?<br><br>I'm not even taking a side in this, and I don't know how well it plays. Just playing devil's advocate...

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 8:57 p.m. CST


    by originalmemflix

    i thought it was hinted at that the comedian killed jfk

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 8:57 p.m. CST

    LOL eat it haters

    by knowthyself

    How does it taste you lousy cynical fucks?

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 9 p.m. CST

    Interesting point about Snyder being the right man ...

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    at the right time. I can buy that.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 9:02 p.m. CST

    Hey bacci...

    by knowthyself must be eating you inside how well this movie turned out lol.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 9:05 p.m. CST


    by Mike_D

    I'm marking this day on my calander!

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 9:06 p.m. CST


    by chiwrtr72

    In the book, he wasn't quite seen as a god, but I think it's a plausible leap given all that he seems capable of. As to whether people would worship him or rebell against him... well that's the crux of it. My point is that if a god suddenly appeared it would be just as dramatic as aliens.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 9:19 p.m. CST

    Spielberg doesn't have the power and pull to make this?

    by D.Vader

    To make it as true to the novel if he wanted to? Really? That can't be what you're suggesting here, Quint.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 9:21 p.m. CST

    Maybe I get what you mean...

    by D.Vader

    If you mean just based on the timeframe of Warners wanting to move ahead with the project "now".

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 9:25 p.m. CST

    Man, Quint

    by DeadPanWalking

    That was some good writing. I had to hold my hands over my eyes and skim through the spoilers, but you gave and interesting, objective glance into the film and have me interested to see it but without a completely established opinion. Nice work.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 9:26 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Lahey

    I'm not reading any reviews of this movie before I see it(haven't read the graphic novel yet), but I just want to let AICN know that it's 2009 and you can probably fix your shit so that it doesn't say POILE in the pretty box. Seriously.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 9:31 p.m. CST

    Thanks Quint, BTW

    by drturing

    I meant less about its visuals and more how the things that are offkey will affect it in terms of being a movie you want to watch over and over again. I think TDK is nigh on perfect but there are a few silly plot holes and the ferry scenes could've been a little better, and every time i watch it again those scenes creak a bit, you know what i mean? Was wondering if your viewing of Watchmen you could feel that the score and the really bad age makeup (it really is bad, isn't it) will make it creak with subsequent viewings.<p> That is an excellent point about Snyder, btw. Sometimes circumstance is a filmmaker's best friend.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 9:32 p.m. CST

    Spielberg doesn't have the pull to get

    by drturing

    his Lincoln movie made right now. Times are tough.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 9:33 p.m. CST

    Quint hated it!


    Fuck you Quint!

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 9:33 p.m. CST

    Quint. This sounds like one of those Moriarty reviews.....


    .....where he fucking hates a movie, but doesn't really wanna say so. Hhhhhmmmmm.....

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 9:35 p.m. CST

    Am I the only one for whom...

    by Arch_Stanton

    The Dark Knight hasn't held up to repeated viewings? In fact, after the second viewing, I'm not sure I'll ever bother to watch it again. It's really not a flick that measures up to what Nolan is capable of making. I can watch Memento over and over - it's nearly a perfect film. But the Dark Knight, apart from a bravura performance from Ledger, is a disppointment. Horrible soundtrack, confusing action, meaningless plot, mediocre effects. Personally, Hellboy II holds up much much better. In fact, in distant retrospect, it may be the best movie I saw last year. SO, if Watchmen wasn't as good as Dark Knight, it must really hug the root.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 9:40 p.m. CST

    Too much story for just 1 movie

    by S-Mart shopper

    With all the detail and material in the comics a 2 part movie would've been ideal. Oh well, at least it finally made it to the big screen. Now where's my big screen adaptation of The Delta Star?

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 9:42 p.m. CST

    Yes, Arch, you're the only one. Now fuck off.

    by Zarles

    As for everyone in here who found it necessary to tell us that they won't be seeing this for whatever reason, good. One less asshole I have to tell to shut the fuck up in the theater.<p><p>Nice work, Quint. I'm dying to see the very last shot of the thing, too, but I can wait.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 9:46 p.m. CST


    by Quint

    And Jesus was just a carpenter when people first knew of him, but that hasn't changed the impact he had, believe in him or not. Chiwrtr72 captured what I was trying to get across as why replacing aliens with Manhattan works for me. You argue that he's not a god, but he has the abilities of a god and a real, tangible power that matches if not surpasses the powers that gods from all religions are supposed to have. So, how he began life isn't an issue for me. The groundwork of distrust in Dr. Manhattan is already part of the story, so it makes perfect sense to me.<BR><BR>G100, I want to make sure it's understood that Manhattan did not blow up the cities. He was complicit in it by building these machines that harness his energy with Veidt, but that only goes to underline his passiveness. He believes Adrian, taking it at face value that all he wants is to invent a cheap energy source that will given to the earth's citizens for free. Just like in the book, he has to be shown that revealing this plot could only hurt the world and humanity, which is why he goes along with it.<BR><BR>slone, you'll be happy.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 9:48 p.m. CST

    No, Arch...

    by xsi kal

    Although for me, TDK didn't hold up on a single viewing, let alone repeat viewings. <br><br> But since most people around here think it's the greatest thing ever made, I think saying that Watchmen is not as good but still good is supposed to be some form of compliment.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 9:51 p.m. CST

    I'm sorry but TDK holds up

    by drturing

    in fact the reason it made so much money is people kept going back to see it. so much to relish like Ledger's iconic performance, the tumbler / batpod / semi sequence is faultlessly perfect, and the final five minutes are extremely sublime, cutting exactly on the frame when you want MORE. And the score is incredible, wtf are you talking about?

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 10 p.m. CST

    A review, comparisons, context and a time to thank Quint.

    by Sithtastic

    Quint, I have been reading your reviews quite awhile and I have to say this is well balanced and reasoned...come to think of it Quint, if you're amazed that Watchmen exists, than I'm amazed the review has produced a TB relatively tame and in good humor compared to prior discussions on Watchmen. In context, your stating the film lands right below Dark Knight and that's about what I expected. Nitpicks aside, this review, along with Moriarty's has increased my confidence in seeing this film. Thanks for the review.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 10:05 p.m. CST

    knowthyself....wrong my friend

    by bacci40

    from the day that i finished with issue 12, i wanted to see it on the big screen<p> i was one of the first tb'ers on the paramount website<p> i had a true geekgasm at viewing the original teaser, and defended zack with every breath after i saw 300<p> and when i heard that zack was making the black freighter, i honestly believed that he was going to keep the themes of the book intact...the fact that he hasnt is disheartening<p> i believe that watchmen is as an important piece of literature as say lord of the flies and catcher in the rye...and i honestly wanted a film that would reflect that

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 10:06 p.m. CST

    Vader and Danny

    by Quint

    I think Spielberg would have had the pull a couple years ago and probably still does today, but he never would have made the film as Moore wrote it. Ever. He's too much of an optimist for it. And I love Spielberg and view him as one of the greatest filmmakers to ever come to the medium. But he doesn't have a Watchmen in him. It's not his style, it's not his tone.<BR><BR>Danny, what you see is what you get. If I hated the movie I would have shot straight with you guys. It's flawed, but it's also the best possible version of the film I can imagine seeing out of the studio system. There are some things that I'm glossing over because I know Snyder shot them for the longer cut. If the Black Freighter was removed completely I'd be furious. If Hollis only had one scene and no resolution to his character to be added into the half-hour longer director's cut I'd be furious. But I know they've done that and I know I'll be seeing it in a few month's time. But those are the only things I didn't bring up specifically.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 10:06 p.m. CST

    Less Than TDK?

    by DOGSOUP

    Damn I was hoping it was better.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 10:07 p.m. CST

    "slone, you'll be happy."

    by Zarles

    Sweeeeeeeet.<p><p>Moriarty's review over on HitFix is stunning. Coupled with Quint's write-up and all the other positive reviews that are popping up all over, it's one of many reasons that not only am I bursting with anticipation to see this film, but also to watch all the pissy naysayers eat a giant load of shit. You'll all be sucking Snyder's balls by sundown, gentlemen. I suggest you go buy some kneepads, stat.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 10:12 p.m. CST

    TDK was much better the second time i watched it

    by BMacSmith

    i caught on to a lot of thins i missed. oh btw it was the best comic book movie ever.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 10:19 p.m. CST

    Quint, re: Jesus

    by Zarathos666

    But everyone knows Jesus was born in Bethlehem. He may be viewed as God, but he is also viewed as a Jew. We don't think Jesus came from Finland or Mars. Everyone knows Dr. Manhattan as the face of US war/power. Wouldn't him being held responsible just create more animosity towards the US? After all, it wasn't just a God that did it, but an American God. And if people are all terrified that he is still out there waiting to come back, that is a pretty pathetic world peace. Veidt's plan in the comic gave the feeling that the world hat united. The movie solution sounds more like people are just cowering together and impotent to do anything against it.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 10:20 p.m. CST

    nice apologist review

    by Rupee88

    It's weird to read reviews like this where every negative is forcibly minimized....but we can read between the lines and it doesn't sound very good. Quint is TRYING so hard to like the film, but in a year, he will admit (to himself at least) that it was just average and failed on many counts.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 10:28 p.m. CST


    by Zarles

    Have you seen it? Have you read Moriarty's review? Then shut your piehole.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 10:30 p.m. CST


    by Quint

    I guess you just have to buy that the world thinks Manhattan destroyed New York and many other American cities as well as other points around the world. He might be American, but he attacked America as well... in the world's eyes. Millions of Americans dead, not just USSR and Chinese.<BR><BR>Rupee, if that's the way you read it, I guess that's the way you read it. I don't apologize for anything in the movie. That's just how I see it. Who knows how I'll feel in the future. Maybe I will hate the movie, but I don't think so. Who can say where their head is at years down the line? I'm not making excuses for what doesn't work, I'm just trying to tell you my thought process while deconstructing the movie after watching it. Hell, I could see it again tomorrow and think I had it wrong. Or I can see it again and it lives up to the first viewing. It's all subjective, man. But you're wrong if you think I spent the review apologizing and making excuses for the movie.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 10:39 p.m. CST

    whoa....hold on


    Who cares about Watchmen? Street Fighter :The Legend of Chun Li hits theaters this week. Just kidding.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 10:43 p.m. CST

    I'm not trying to call you out Quint.


    I don't think you intentionally sugar-coated it. The review just had an odd tone....I really couldn't tell. <P> But I know you're straight up.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 10:47 p.m. CST

    TB'r: Why didn't they use some of that ultra-believable

    by ThePilgrim

    Benjamin Button CGI on the actors when they are supposed to be older.. Cause it was a replacement head in CG in BB. All of those scene with Brad as an old man. It's not his face (it's only his face when he younger and his own age- they use 2d digital paint tricks to young up his face) But the old man versions of him. It's a wireframe cgi head on another persons body. Fuck.... Not going to get into the whole this is how they did it speech- Life cast- Rick Baker created old age makeup on top of the lifemask (no one mentioned him at the oscars- cunts!)- it was digitally scanned and turned into a 3d model. Pitt sits in front of realtime 3d scan cams. They record the motions of his face- special UV paint tells the the camera how far away the subject is from the camera in real time- Face is recorded in real time in 3d that data is retranslated to the control points on the wire frame CGI old age face model.<P> <P>The realistic CGI human is here now. It works. Yeah they could have done that for the old aged versions of the characters in watchmen, but theres like 6 of them that require olding up. Vs "One" Benjamin Button. The Budget wouldn't cover it. Also isn't Manhattan totally CGI... Using the Same 3d real time digital face recording tech with the UV paint used..

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 10:54 p.m. CST

    Pilgrim.....none of that bullshit is necessary.


    There have been plenty of films with good age make-up. Please-- lets keep something none CG related. <P>In the trailer, Old Comedian looks like a poor man's Bruce Campbell Elvis, which is odd. The budget for Bubba was like 150 bucks. What the fuck?

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 10:55 p.m. CST

    Oh I didn't think Manhattan had a hand in it Quint

    by G100

    Don't worry about that as I don't underestimate Snyder that much. But it simply rankles that Manhattan COULD be framed up for it.<p> <p>It's not that the public in the watchmen world wouldn't believe it because the everyman newsvendor (who is the common man in the comic) is pretty jingoistic and happy about Manhattan as he's Americas Big Blue Demigod against the Red menace, until the cancer scare then he's a creep who was "always" distrusted, then after he vanishes it's complete fear and dismay because superiority is lost. Suspicion is never far away.<p> <p>So even though Manhattan's image is constantly manipulated by the Government the unbridled power he represents and his lack of care for that image in the way he speaks and sometimes dresses is always mistrusted and treated with suspicion.<p> <p>So yes, the Watchmen world COULD believe he would turn rogue.<p> <p>But when you read the comic you know it's an act would be incapable of by that point and I'm assuming if the Movie is pretty faithfull you'll get the same impression.<p> <p>It's a nice contrast with Veidt BTW who has carefully manipulated his image to be a "nice guy philanthropist" but is undoubtedly still a bit suspect because of "the smartest man in the world".*SPOILER* Veidts manipulation and PR is just as much a part of his masterplan as his other actions and underlines WHY he's the mastermind because not just the Watchmen World's public would never suspect him because of it, but WE the readers (and viewers) are surprised because his is a benign presence right up until until we hear his "monologuing".<p> <p>I like to think of Manhattan as the talking Bomb in Dark Star or HAL. Or as it's so memorably pu in the comic, a walking H-Bomb that occasionally gets laid. ;-)<p> <p>Though it occurs to me that in the comic Ozy DOES throw a little suspicion on Manhattan. In his interview he emphasises just how "alien" Manhattan is with his Red and Blue ants comment. I always felt the fact of Manhattan gnawed at Ozy's soul since he was the embodiment of the power Ozy craved to good in the world but it was given to someone who didn't want it and didn't really know what to do with it. Ozy always struck me as envious and jealous of Manhattan. IMO of course.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 11 p.m. CST


    by Bass Ackwards

    On of the questions I had about the change incending is it made sense to band together against an unknown ambiguous alien race, but if a teleporting invulnerable creature like Manhattan, who could poof himself to Mars and destroy Earth from there with thoughts, well, i'd think people wouldn't be banding together to fight so much as give up. I'd rather have the squid, but the new ending leading to humanity fearful and attempting to appease Jon, depending on how it's handled could be interesting itself, essentially taking a god-like character and turning him into God. That prison fight scene still bugs me though, seems like the ball was dropped on what could be a tense, chaotic sequence to drop in an average ho-hum Hollywood fight. Hey Quint, not to bug you too much about lines, but one of my favorite exhanges, Veidt imploring Manhattan to stay as he was starting to care about people "Yes, perhaps I'll create some." In or out?

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 11:08 p.m. CST

    I dont think this will do well.


    I have not read the book. All I know of it is what I read here. But the more details I hear about the story, like Bass Ackwards' last post, the less interesting this sounds. For someone that has no emotional connection to the original just doesn't sound very appealing.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 11:11 p.m. CST


    by Quint

    I don't think the back and forth is the same, but yes... Manhattan has that line, which almost indicates he's crossing over completely, taking the mantle of a God.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 11:12 p.m. CST


    by Quint

    I'll be curious to hear what you think when you see it. A part of me wishes I didn't know the graphic novel and experience it this way first. Let me know what you think when you see it.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 11:16 p.m. CST

    I will Quinty.


  • Feb. 24, 2009, 11:22 p.m. CST

    Question for Quint

    by Anino

    Snyder held a contest for 80's style commercials for Veidt/Ozymandias products--do you remember if any of the entries made it into the film? And do they say "vite" or "vate"? Always wondered about that.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 11:31 p.m. CST

    Passionate and inflamed debate

    by darthSaul666

    Seems like any review I've read is rather positive about the movie. I love the this book. The best Superhero Story ever written IMO. I've been totally comfortable with notion that some sacrifices would need to be made for the change in medium. I get paid on opening day. I'll go see it for sure. Why some folks go off on changes like it's country's fucked up foreign policy is a little lost on me. I always figured if they could keep true to Rorschach's whodunit of who killed the Comedian and framed Dr. Manhattan as a carcinogen I would least of all be entertained. But it sounds like this film may have some verisimilitude like what Richard Donner wanted with Superman

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 11:34 p.m. CST

    You know, I like Mori...

    by My friends call me Killjoy

    but, when Quint leaves AICN, it will be the saddest day for us. Thanks for doing everything that you a way that always respects the views of others. You're a class act, you salty sea dog!

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 11:40 p.m. CST


    by Anino

    If she turns out to be the weak link in the film, then that's not necessarily a bad thing. Sure, her story is interesting, representing the second generation of vigilantes (and by blood too), but her story wasn't the most compelling in the novel...I'm more interested in Rorshach, in DocManhattan--and in Dan Dreiberg. I think Dreiberg is who most of us would relate to anyway.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 11:46 p.m. CST

    I agree with you guys.....


    .....the reason Quint's TBs stay civil is the way in which he approaches TB'ers. He clearly respects us and values our opinion. Quint has no elitist tone. He never has. Not since I've been reading. Someone like Mr. Beaks, who apparently used to be a TB'er, clearly believes his shit doesn't stink and uses every opportunity he can to talk down to TB'ers as if they are silly children. He can give a fuck about the feedback, he writes to run his mouth and further validate the importance of his own personal opinion. Fuck that shit. Quint clearly enjoys the interaction and we should all appreciate that.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 11:53 p.m. CST

    God angle

    by sokitome

    it still doesn't work because God and ALIENS are a completely different scenarios. If the two were so interchangable Moore would have done it, since the GN is about both subjects. Jesus didn't have a freak accident and become the son of God. It was one of prophecy, specifically the jewish messiah prophecy. He was BORN a god which is where the question of his divinity arises. if you don't believe he was god then you're not a christian, it's that simple. MANHATTAN is a freak of science and is described as much in the GN. DOC MANHATTAN doesn't just pop out on the scene, he's been around a long time. He demonstrates unbelievable powers throughout. Him destroying the world doesn't convince people that he's a god. DIVINITY, is one that is innate at birth not something achieved by accident. Jesus was a carpenter but the belief was he was still a god when he was a carpenter. EVEN if he is looked at like a god. You really think world would unite? if they didn't do it before. I just don't think it's a fundamental shift. I think that aspect of MOORE's original GN makes it the masterpiece that it is. To say it's unfilmable seems a copout when they got so much of it right. Anyway this all may be moot if I see it and love it. So I hope this TB is still around so we can continue this discussion Quint, and I apologize for my first post if I seem to question your ability as a reviewer for not seeing the difference.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 11:53 p.m. CST

    Quint - Great Review...

    by Read and Shut Up


  • Feb. 24, 2009, 11:54 p.m. CST


    by menstrual_blitz seem so peaceful. what happened? spiritual conversion via baleback?

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 11:54 p.m. CST

    Good solid review Quint, can you field one more question

    by Dancingforever

    Could we finally please discuss the Rorscach death scene and what thew twist is. I'm still reeling they didn't include the Nite Owl Death scene, that to me makes no sense as it is easily one of the most emotional parts of the book. I'm curious as to how they have changed Rorschachs death.

  • Feb. 24, 2009, 11:59 p.m. CST



  • Feb. 25, 2009, 12:12 a.m. CST

    Ah, but

    by PTSDPete

    Is ' The Dark Knight ' the Best Film of 2008 in YOUR list ? Because it IS. Dammit.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 12:16 a.m. CST

    FUUUCCCKKKKK !!!!!!!!!!

    by PTSDPete

    I just wanna see this fucking film. MY GOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 12:19 a.m. CST


    by JumpinJehosaphat

    I'll never understand the need most TBers have of boiling every single movie down to black and white absolutes. "Did it suck ass and is it shit?" "Did it rule and fuck eyeballs?" Seriously, if this is how any of you judge film or any creative endeavor, then you probably have a very hollow existence.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 12:33 a.m. CST


    by paulmkelly


  • Feb. 25, 2009, 12:33 a.m. CST



    I judge films like I judge cunt. Its either a peach pie or cold spinach. There is no grey.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 12:46 a.m. CST

    This review...

    by macheesmo3

    Makes me feel much better. I love the comic, however, I am a realist and i figured the squid would be the first thing they ditched ( along with The Black Frieghter) when i discovered they were keeping the latter and ditching the former I figured" hey 1 out of 2 ain't bad!". Just give me something entertaining that doesn't embarass the source material and I'm a happy guy. This sounds like it does just that. I am one of those who actually loved the testosterpalooza of 300 and appreciated it as probably beinng the best version of THAT we'd ever get as well. Heck, noone has ever made a perfect Moby Dick either, but if they gave it another shot, I'd go in hoping for the best ( and Huston's version is pretty darn good, just not really the depth of the book) . I guess what I'm saying is, if Watchmen the movie can live up to the levels of John Huston's Moby Dick, i think all us TB'ers should be happy we got a Watchmen film that good!

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 12:49 a.m. CST

    Quint, thanks for letting me know

    by BadMrWonka

    I'll let you know after I see it with my friend, how we both react. we have extremely similar taste in films, so it'll be a fairly accurate test, all things considering.<p> I'm sure that you'll be waiting with baited breath to hear my take on it. after all, I'm special.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 1:01 a.m. CST

    you're not special Wonka.


    but you're the fucking MAN. PEACE.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 1:02 a.m. CST

    So basically Watchmen is Fight Club?

    by SomaShine

    just asking

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 1:29 a.m. CST

    ha, DANNY

    by BadMrWonka

    I remember I earned your undying respect for degrading a talkback doofus to the point of conciliation. to where he actually said, "fuck it, you win".<p>we need to get that started again, but nothing's come up that I feel the need to defend. when will they get West Wing back on the air?

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 1:41 a.m. CST

    Anino, Soki, Dancing, Paul

    by Quint

    Anino - I didn't see any commercials, but I'm sure there must have been some playing on Ozy's bank o' TVs at the end (and Road Warrior, too!)<BR><BR>Soki, again I see where you're coming from, but what I'm saying is what Jesus was like at the time. I'm no Christian scholar but I seem to remember the good book describing him as a poor lad when he heard his calling and started preaching. He wasn't someone special, just like Jon wasn't and he became more. The Jesus allegory isn't solid, I grant you. It'd be more like Jesus and the Jewish God from the Old Testament mixed, in the eyes of the people of the world, I would assume. But yeah, when you see the movie let me know... find an article I write and leave a talkback. I'm curious to see if you and I can see eye to eye on this one. I will say up front that I'm sure there could be more to build up to that, more foreshadowing, but outside of a few key scenes, I have no idea what else is shot for the director's cut.<BR><BR>Dancing, it's not a major change. I think Harry was referring to there being a witness to it now and then the twist being something I'll let the movie give you, but it's not a big thing at all. It's a shot, visual poetry to sum up Rorschach's final mark on the planet. And it is pretty great.<BR><BR>Paul, you might be very happy ourself in the near future.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 2:02 a.m. CST

    If you saying me

    by darthSaul666

    Sounds like I might like the movie alot

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 2:12 a.m. CST

    Going in with no reference material

    by CaseyMcCall

    Never read a single comic, but still can't wait to see this one. March 5th in Europe, bring it on!

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 2:34 a.m. CST

    Sounds good.

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    Still interested.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 2:49 a.m. CST

    I'm confused.

    by Fortunesfool

    Everyone review says this is brilliant and then goes on to talk about everything that's wrong with it.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 2:50 a.m. CST

    "very first comic book movie

    by Dingbatty

    to take the ludicrous and completely ground it in reality" is what we need to get away from in superhero flicks. Of course, they shouldn't be campy and silly, but a serious tone applied to the fantastic would be a refreshing change, and closer to the genre.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 3:28 a.m. CST

    Nice review Quint

    by malificus

    Fairly succinct yet informative, doesn't sound like the movie was far afield of expectations, which is good news. People should also recognize that there obviously are no restrictions on advance reviews which is as it should be. My wife is interested but she'd never stand for a movie of this length, will have to wait for the disk I reckon. Sounds good, something to look forward to, plus if they incorporate the animation bits right into the movie and maybe include a squid edition it might be wise to wait.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 3:31 a.m. CST

    Great review Quint

    by photoboy

    I think that answered all my nagging questions about the film and especially the changed ending. Everyone seems to be saying the new ending works really well, so I look forward to seeing it for myself!

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 3:41 a.m. CST

    Not as good as The Dark Knight... so...

    by metaluna

    it's basically rubbish then? Because The Dark Knight really wasn't that good. Seriously. I stopped reading your review when you wrote that, Quint. Let me just point out the fatal flaw with superhero movies - after the origin story, they have nothing interesting to say because anything deep or meaningful is totally usurped by the fact that A. it's a fantasy whose drama relies on the use of fantastical powers B. it's about someone running around in a silly costume. No matter how 'serious' the underlying message, no one is going to take it seriously. It's like being given the message that your mother died by someone wearing a daffy duck outfit. These movies are excuses for special effects and action sequences that no one in the real world can relate to. If you can relate to any of them, I suggest you go see your therapist right now. Pay your ten bucks, enjoy the ride, forget about it afterwards. The notion that serious drama is now the way to go with superhero movies is just laughable, but it's a nice marketing trick by the studios. I'm just waiting for the superhero musical. You know it's coming.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 4:06 a.m. CST

    Love the review Quint

    by BrightEyes

    Seemed genuine and oddly your review seems to be the warmest toward the film, when usually you seem more irritated by things. Cannot wait to see this movie. God I love cinema.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 4:19 a.m. CST

    I saw it yesterday and I loved it

    by MorpheusTheSandman

    Nitpiks indeed. Send my review to Harry, but you can read it here: Morph

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 5:32 a.m. CST

    The Dark Knight = overrated

    by joergn

    Seemingly everyone seem to think "Dark Knight" was the 2nd coming of Christ or whatsoever. Or at least the best comic book movie of all time. I don´t feel that way. As much as I loved Ledger´s Performance or the structure of the movie, it never felt like a Batman-movie or a Comic Book-movie. Everything praising it´s so "grounded in reality". Hell, that´s what´s wrong with the movie. There was no mythology behind it, no suspension of disbelief. The main character, Batman himself, was a joke. He relies so much on his whole high-tech gimmicks, that you´re asking why he´s wearing that cape after all. Everyone could do his job! The whole movie felt much more like a crime thriller like "the departed" with some comic characters thrown in to please the geeks. So much for all the "dark knight" references. That may have been a good, maybe even great movie, but it wasn´t a good or even faithful adaption of the comics. Hopefully "Watchmen" is going to work better in that way!

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 6:11 a.m. CST

    people who hate TDK= overblown sense of self-importance

    by BMacSmith

    seriously, you'd think a movie that grossed over a billion dollars, was loved by the VAST majority of movie critics, comic fans, film geeks and normal people would at least get some begrudging respect from people who didn't like it. Insteaed they just explain all of its success away with "well, if heath ledger hadn't died no one would care". it really is quite sad that they can't admit it was a great movie.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 6:38 a.m. CST

    An interesting article about film critics

    by ominus <p>it talks about AICN too.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 6:44 a.m. CST

    Fair point about the ending but...

    by Fuck The Napkin

    It still needed to show the human cost of the plot to give it weight. Having the bodies vaporised was a cop-out - we needed to see piles of bodies or at least tons of blood and guts (a la the splats caused by Doc Manhattan) to show how many people had to die. Being told that it was 15 million just doesn't have so much weight. A gory, harrowing slap in the face like the first pages of chapter 12 would have really affected audiences more and made the moral dilemma more interesting. I reckon, anyhow.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 7:09 a.m. CST

    Duck and cover

    by Duke_Whittington

    As a fan of the book for some twenty or so years I surprised myself by warming to the no squid ending as soon as it was announced. Re-reading the book again in a frenzy of anticipation before next weeks viewing I think it makes even more sense. The framing of Dr Manhattan, his growing more distant from humanity, to me it all fits in a satisfactory way. I loved the squid in the comic. I'll reserve judgement on the film's ending until I've actually seen it. P.S. The book also suggests that it was the Comedian that killed JFK, if not actually coming out and saying it!

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 7:11 a.m. CST

    Snyder just didnt have the ballls

    by ominus

    the producers didnt want to have such terrifying images,because they were worried that the audience might get disgusted,so they told snyder to alternate the ending,and him being a little bitch said yes.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 7:13 a.m. CST


    by RockLobster800

    I was fairly impartial about the ending change to begin with, but the idea that the threat is nw a vengeful God, mirroring peoples fears of their own Gods brings up more interesting points...looking forward to seeing this! Oh and TDK was brilliant-why cant people just admit it and get on with their lives?

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 7:17 a.m. CST

    Would the squid have really worked?

    by Duke_Whittington

    We'll never know.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 7:19 a.m. CST

    actually Quint-a question

    by RockLobster800

    I havent seen pop up in any other they keep the visual motif in the film from the comic of the shadow couple intertwined in anyway? The grafitti we see coming up time and again and then in various other guises throughout...Cos it's pretty crucial for me (for Rorshach in particular, as it follows him constantly-from his mother to Dan and Laurie's shadows before his death, mirroring the shadows burnt on walls during Hiroshima and recalling how Rorshach said dropping that bomb was the right thing which then sets up his duality for the ending...phew!). I mean I LOVED the use of that motif in the book, and hope it made it into the film no matter how subtly...but no reviewer has said whether its there or not :S

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 7:21 a.m. CST

    Will you dicks ever shut up about The Dark Knight?

    by Zarles

    For a movie you didn't like, you sure as hell talk about it a lot.<p><p>ominus, shut the fuck up. That's what an R rating is for, dickwipe. Get ready to lick that little bitch's balls in about a week-and-a-half.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 7:24 a.m. CST

    TDK is great

    by ominus

    but after a third viewing,u start realising that the movie has many flaws. <p>mad magazine had a great parody of some of those flaws,and in various cine forums,these things are discussed too. <p>for example why at the end of the movie,why gordon and batman didnt simply throw the blame of the murdered cops to jocker,and instead bats took the blame in order to protect harvey dent? <p>and who the fuck is dent? jesus christ,whom without him,gotham city citizens could not be saved? his importance in the social matters and functionality of the city,was very very exaggerated <p>then there is the scene with the people voting for the lives in the bomb trapped ships. !?!?!?! i mean what the fuck? in a realistic movie,that was the most unrealistic depiction of human nature. <p>if it wasnt for ledgers great perfomance and tragic death, the movie would have been just a good sequel to a mediocre reboot,and not that big of a boxoffice like now.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 7:33 a.m. CST


    by Spifftacular Squirrel Girl

    Lessee if I can help here... <p> The reason why Gordan and Batman didn't put the blame on the cops might have to do with the fact that it's a dick move. No honor in it plus think about how that'd ruin the dead cops family's lives. <p> Harvey Dent was important because he was the one of the rare people in Gotham who was basically uncoruptable. <p> And if the the whole boat sequence was just to prove that the Joker was wrong about people's moralistic behavior. <p>

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 7:45 a.m. CST

    Nobody could argue it's worse than TDK???

    by speed

    Mmm...I loved the Joker in the TDK and that it was a 70's cop movie but I had quite a few problems with the movie overall. <P>Two face was poorly handled and the make up/CGI work was silly at best.<P> Then you have the pointless ferry scene that brings the entire movie screeching to a halt.<P> Add in the really difficult to follow fight scenes and in my opinion you got a movie that was very well made but had some missteps. It was a great cinematic experience though!

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 7:54 a.m. CST


    by RockLobster800

    the reason for Gordon and Batman not blaming the Joker is because its an oppurtunity for Batman to be a feared figure again. You remember the fake Batmen? Citizens endangering their lives because they thought he was a true hero...and thats not what Wayne wanted.Its causing more trouble for him if anything. Plus you might remember that Maroni says to Bats something like "everyones in on your act-you got rules. The Joker doesnt have rules". This, coupled with how cool Maroni is when held over the side of the building indicates that crooks know that Batman wont kill them, and therefore they arent as afraid as he would like them to be. So by shouldering the blame for the murders Bats comes off as a killer to citizens, who might stop trying to emulate him, and therefore the Batmen wont start again. PLUS, if criminals now think he's willing to kill, his street rep goes up a notch, and he becomes a much more feared power on Gothams streets....all this stuff is in the film, you just have to look for it and think about it! (sorry, didnt want to sound condescending there, its just Ive had to answer that question a lot since July :S)

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 8 a.m. CST


    by Jaws Wayne

    That was a great post, made me laugh, and fully agree with all you said. Now, as for the big screen version of Watchmen, what I think is that it will definitely be worth watching, but that the extended version will actually be the one that should/could be really worthwhile. Have to wait a few months for that I guess, so first it's time to check out the already long but truncated version at the local cineplex.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 8:04 a.m. CST


    by ominus

    <p>1.u base your argument on hypothesis.i am sorry but i can only accept what is explained based on what is INSIDE AND THROUGH the movie,and notfrom personal perception of why something is happening or not. <p>in other words,nowhere in the film,we are shown the size of batmans honor,so at the end of the movie,we can safely argue that he sacrifices himself, instead of puting 3 more murders in the account of a mass-murderer lunatic,because of his honor. <p>2.he was important,but at the movie he was depicted as a savior of the city.its another thing to have someone to inspire the people and give them hope,and another thing that u need someone else to save u,and without him u r doomed.there is a difference to that. <p>3.u didnt understand my statement.i am talking about human nature,not human civilization.when u are trapped and ready to die,the instict of survival takes on.especially when u have a u r in a boat ready to get exploded,and u calmly sit down and think what u will vote? thats not an everyday human being would do. <p>remember the 911 burning towers? remember the images of the unlucky people,trapped on the burning floors? they jumped out of the windows because they wanted to take their ultimate chance to live,instead of getting burned alive.even thought they were going to die from the fall. <p>thats human nature my friend,not just to sit down and argue in civilized way who dies and not. <p>anyway thanx for your effort,but u didnt help much

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 8:06 a.m. CST

    the above post was at squirrel girl

    by ominus

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 8:14 a.m. CST

    u see squirel

    by ominus

    thats what i am talking about. RockLobster800 tries to give an explanation using the content of the movie.ofc at the end he expresses his opinion,but an opinion based on facts and not unspecific elements.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 8:17 a.m. CST


    by just pillow talk

    to your first point: "i can only accept what is explained based on what is INSIDE AND THROUGH the movie,and notfrom personal perception of why something is happening or not."<p>What do you do when films don't spell it out for you and expect you to come to your own conclusions? I do agree with you that I thought it was silly that Batman took the heat for the deaths. The Joker could have been blamed, and Dent's reputation could have still been intact without Batman going on the run.<p>And I think this hurts Batman's cause more than helps his 'reputation' Rocklobster. Think of all the resources now being wasted on the pursuit and capture of Batman instead of on criminals? <p>And maybe it was overstated about Dent and his impact on the city, BUT Batman and Gordon didn't think so. They thought he was part of the solution. And the criminal element clearly thought Dent was becoming a big problem.<p>The Ferry scene...I realize what they were going for with it, but I too thought it was poorly executed. However, I still love this movie.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 8:25 a.m. CST

    No disrespect intended but...

    by yodalovesyou

    "DARK KNIGHT is the very first comic book movie to take the ludicrous and completely ground it in reality. Others have come close, but it was Dark Knight that reached the finish line completely. The villain was dark, the structure was uncommon, there were real threats, real deaths and true ambiguity in the villains and heroes alike." That was exactly the reason I didn't think much of it. There was no imagination, no spectacle, no sense of wonder. It was the most ordinary summer movie ever made. It was like watch Law and Order or CSI: GOTHAM whenever The Joker wasn't around. Sorry.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 8:33 a.m. CST


    by Speed Fricassee

    I saw this a week or so ago, and everyone in the theater who had NOT read the book absolutely hated the film. I read the book, and preferred the movie, but I have to admit that I was only able to follow the film because I knew what was coming. My advice is to read the thing as fast as you can, and you'll enjoy the show twentyfold.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 8:41 a.m. CST

    As always Quint has the best review

    by filmcoyote

    Of those on this site Quint's is the most measured. Having not loved the film myself Harry's left me wanted to air my reservations. Quint may like it more than i do but i read his review thinking "exactly". Spot on Mr Q, excellent review.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 8:42 a.m. CST

    yeah Snyder had no balls....

    by knowthyself

    ..R rated. Three hours. Filled to the brim with nudity, cussing, gore, and faithful to a fault. Yes he had no balls. Clearly.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 8:51 a.m. CST

    "Snyder didn't have the balls"

    by filmcoyote

    Ominus, if Snyder didn't have balls you'd be getting a PG-13 version of this with Rorschach more a central, more clearly heroic figure, with no sex, no violence. You have to pick your battles and given the money Warner put in to this and it's amazing Snyder was able to do what he did. Personally i still didn't love the result but to see a studio put out a film like this shows the huge pair of swinging brass ones Snyder has and uses.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 8:53 a.m. CST


    by ominus

    your explanation is good,but u ignore something very important: <p>batman took the blame for the murder of cops,NOT VILLAINS. the cops were corrupted,but the people of Gotham dont know that,and they will never know that,as long as Harvey is protected. <p>so in the eyes of the public, batman has killed innocent people,so batman doesnt become an anti-hero who killed some villains (something the people wouldnt give a fuck about anyway),he becomes a villain too,the same as those he fights. <p>that means that not only people will stop pretending to be batmen,they wont give even a shit about the fact that he too tries to help Gotham.the same thing,and the same reason for the sacrifise,as they wouldnt give a shit about Harvey if they knew he was the copkiller. <p>at the end doesnt that make batmans struggle to help gotham,meaningless? the citys goverment doest trust him,the citys people dont trust him,so how is goign to send to jail the criminals,using the legal procedures of the citys justice system? <p>here cops who dont trust me,i caught those bad guys,who now are afraid of me, with this heroin suticase.what is that? the bad guys claim i put the suitcase is mine and i put it there to frame? but mr attorney distric,u got to believe me i am with your side,i am not a bad guy even if i killed those innocent them please or they ll get free and i ll have to catch them again. <p>u see my point why your theory isnt working well?

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 8:58 a.m. CST

    Ozy's flaw

    by almostgrown

    I always thought it was implied in the book that Ozy's flaw was his superiority complex and that is why he left the info and password so readily accessible, because he underestimated the abilities of every other human to be able to logically connect things together like that. And, I also vaguely remember it being implied that Blake was involved in JFK's assassination during the dinner party scene in the book.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 9:02 a.m. CST

    So uh, no squid, I heard. Sucks eh.

    by ricarleite

    I've read so many spoiler reviews and seen so many clips, I think I'll skip this movie! Unless there is a squid. Is there? No?

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 9:02 a.m. CST

    just pillow talk

    by ominus

    i create my own opinions on what is happening on a movie,based on the facts of the movie. <p>i cant accept that batman didnt framed joker for the murders of the cops,because he is a honorable man.where does it say that in the movie that he is honorable? in the comics yes,but not in the movie.and even if it does say it,what are they limits of his honor.i cant speak for the movie,meaning to give my own standards of batmans honor,so i cant accept his honor as an argument. <p>it reminds me the endless arguments about the story of the matrix trilogy and its unlimited plot holes and unexplained things.the fanatic supporters of the trilogy,were,and i mean it,they were trying all the time to explain things using no-existent elements from the movies,no-existent facts that they were making them up their minds just then.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 9:05 a.m. CST

    There's something fishy about this review

    by zapano

    Seiously, after reading Harry's review I wasn't going to see it. Then i read Mori's and I changed my mind. Now having read Quint's I'm not so sure anymore. There's this disconnect that reviewers keep mentioning. If you're not engaged with the film, then there's no point in watching the film. Also, most reviewers seem just grateful that it made the big screen. Well that's not a good enough reason to see it. Furthmore it appears that it is almost too faithful to the source material to the detriment of the film itself. To some extent, aicn is the last place to see whether a comic book film is worth seeing. Compromise is becoming increasingly apparent on this site. In relation to this film in particular, it appears that you're giving this film an easy ride mainly because you're just happy it was made and it was faithful to the book. If the film works say it works, if it doesn't work say it doesn't work. I'm just gonna have to read Anthony Lane or Mark Kermode for an honest opinion on this one. At least they don't compromise themselves.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 9:07 a.m. CST

    "Snyder didn't have the balls"

    by Fuck The Napkin

    "the producers didnt want to have such terrifying images"<br><br> The film is actually a lot more graphic, gory and violent than the book - it's only the ending where they held back. It's all 9/11's fault.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 9:07 a.m. CST

    I disagree

    by ominus

    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. <p>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. <p>anyway

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 9:10 a.m. CST

    911 fault

    by ominus

    i agree with that napkin.but that does not negates snyders lack of balls.u do a true adaptation as u promise,or u sit at home and play with your dolls.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 9:34 a.m. CST

    ominus, the word is 'YOU'.

    by Zarles

    Typing out two more letters isn't going to kill you. See how easy that was? Y.O.U. Christ, that's annoying.<p><p>"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." Dude, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The point of it is that 300 WASN'T a PG-rated movie and still turned out to be as successful as it was.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 9:42 a.m. CST

    why SS2 isn't smoking...

    by Stickman83

    a nitpick if I ever saw one.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 9:43 a.m. CST

    Good Review Quint. But Yoda (on TDK comments)...

    by ScottinDC

    I don't want to detract from the main point of discussion here (The Watchmen) but on TDK: yes, it's understandable that some don't enjoy it because it seems TOO grounded in reality and lacks the soaring imagination of the comics - but that was also the brave choice made by Nolan in his vision of the material. He was willing to strip away some of the spectacle and let the characters carry more of the tale (which was unusual for that genre). With that said, I am willing to take the barbs for saying this...but the TDK impresses me a little less on repeat viewings (the film's flaws are more glaring over time). I am interested if the Watchmen has that same effect on me...seemingly less impressive when watched a second (or third) time.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 10 a.m. CST

    Zarles -- don't be a smart ass.


    His point was Snyder was able to make Watchmen R-Rated because of 300's success as an R-Rated film. What don't you fucking understand?<p>You knew what he was trying to say, but you just wanted to hear your own fucking mouth flap. <p>Choke on a severed cock.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 10:06 a.m. CST

    Lets talk about Bobby Jindal....


    When he was four years old, Piyush changed his name to “Bobby” after becoming mesmerized by an episode of The Brady Bunch. Jindal later wrote that he began considering converting to Catholicism during high school after “being touched by the love and simplicity of a Christian girl who dreamt of becoming a Supreme Court justice so she could stop her country from ‘killing unborn babies.’”

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 10:20 a.m. CST

    Wait - WHA?!

    by wcme

    "The notion that serious drama is now the way to go with superhero movies is just laughable, but it's a nice marketing trick by the studios." So, you need a cartoon "Superfriends" with the wondertwins and the wonder dog as s superhero movie?! Did you never see the drama laced within Superman? Did you read the earth shattering Silver Surfer\Galactus epic in FF 49-51? Did you read the epic issue where Spiderman is trapped under the tons of equipment and about to drown and needs to get the medicine to aunt may and it reads like Shakespeare with page after page of pathos and misery and drama? Did you see Jean Grey kill herself on the moon so as to not destroy the universe.What have superheros been if not dramatic stories? Well, unless you have Superman and batman and their earth 12 sons as brothers and husbands to Lois and Vicky putting up Christmas wreathes in costume around a roaring fire.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 10:24 a.m. CST

    wcme -- please stay on topic. Its Bobby Jindal TIME!


  • Feb. 25, 2009, 10:28 a.m. CST

    Jindal and the 'Volcano Monitoring"

    by ScottinDC didn't appreciate Jindal talking about "volcano monitoring"? You probably didn't understand that was code for Jindal's boyfriend's careful inspection of his "smoldering cum-dumpster of an ass" for cleanliness. See? Makes more sense when you look at it in that light.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 10:29 a.m. CST

    ominous, thats fair...

    by RockLobster800

    but I dont think Bats rep as a hero to the people matters to him-thats why he's protecting the legacy of Harvey, the "hero with a face" over his own rep....I mean the whole speech at the end about him " a silent protector, a dark knight" shows that he isnt looking to come off as a hero, and therefore he wouldnt care if the people of Gotham thought he was a vilain...he fights the good fight under extra duress now because "he can take it". Plus, Gordon knows the truth and so any legal tie ups that kight come from Batman taking down guys can be assisted by him...Im sure they can work smething, its not hard for Gordon to then release the info about Wuertza and Ramierez as having links to Maroni, seeing as Ramierez (who survived) will probably get arrested for it anyways-that info can get to the public very easily. Then it just looks then like Bats killed a couple of corrupt cops and their boss, while Harvey's death might be blamed on his injuries earlier in the film, or in him getting blown up in the I dont see any problems with the arguements, and Im sure when the followup comes round Nolan will address problems like that anyways. I mean, classically Batman is equally reviled as admired-thats why you get cops like Bullock (who fingers crossed will make an appearace in a third film)looking to take him down, while Gordon helps. I know the film has plenty of gaps in logic, but I just dont think thats one of them...

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 10:30 a.m. CST

    Quint Learned a New Word: Ambiguity

    by Jack Shepherd

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 10:31 a.m. CST

    ScottinDC -- awwww I see.


    So that explains why he looks like he hasn't slept in weeks. He has been up every night "Performing." His act involves snake blood, banjos, candles, and 13 erect penises. I like his magnetic dick levitation trick...its fucking amazing.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 10:32 a.m. CST

    So what is 'graphic sex' exactly?

    by Arcadian Del Sol

    Im not sure what makes a sex scene 'graphic' as opposed to just being a sex scene. Does 'graphic' imply nudity, or something more specific?

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 10:36 a.m. CST

    I wanna see Bale punch through Jindal's head.


    Literally through his fist cracks through the back of his skull in a fountain of red jelly and hamburger meat with hair wedged between his knuckles. THATS CHICAGO!

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 10:37 a.m. CST


    by ScottinDC

    "Graphic" sex means "graphic novel sex" apparently...aka "sex with a flaccid blue glowing penis". I wonder if he shoots electricity when he....ahh nevermind.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 10:38 a.m. CST

    In my book..."GRAPHIC SEX" is ass fucking.


    Regular sex is any object in the cunt.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 11:06 a.m. CST

    this is a legitimate question

    by Arcadian Del Sol

    several AICN and AICN-linked reviews have praised this movie because it contains "graphic sex" as if that was some kind of outrageous achievement in film.<p> What is it that makes the sex scenes in this movie 'graphic' ? again, does this imply nudity? If so, that Da Vinci dude was ahead of his time.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 11:14 a.m. CST

    So Quint - about the squid...

    by spud mcspud

    Do you REALLY think it'd take more time to set up the squid as it does to set up the Manhattan frame job? 'Cos they're basically the same - the Comedian is killed for uncovering the plot, you've got to figure what to rpelace the use of artists & scientists to create the squid with people helping unwittingly in the frame job / energy machines side of things... all you're really doing is rewriting scenes to accommodate that dumb Manhattan frame job idea in all the scenes that give hints about the squid plan. Why does everyone seem to think that setting the squid up would take longer?<P> And if EVER a movie needed a decent supervillain monologue scene, with the good guys beaten up and subdued while the supervillain explains his plan - some of it V/O while we see the shots earlier on in the movie play out as the hints to the REAL plan - then it is WATCHMEN. That whole end scene could have been put up on the screen, shot for shot and word for word, and those who hadn't seen this movie would have been mindfucked as much as we rabid GN fans. but I'm hearing all kinds of heinous *SPOILER*y shit - Dan actually gets to hit Ozy (What? How? He's nowhere near as fit, motivated or as trained!), Manhattan is actually convinced by Ozy that the frame job is a good idea (what?) and that Manhattan was unaware of what Ozy was doing (Yeah. A GOD that can sense everything else that goes on in the universe - he tells Laurie about what's going to happen in HER future - but he can't see the frame up job being done? Lemme guess - tachyon particles muddying things up? So Manhattan is a God, but he forgets to keep his intellect). And that Dan sees what happensc outside in the snow?<P> Sorry, but if there was one thing they shouldn't have half-assed - and it IS half-assed, Quint, if they downsize the threat at the climax from a universal, possibly multidimensional, threat to a pissed-off ex-human American demi-god gone rogue, which is WAY less interesting and/or surprising) - if there's one story that should have either been 100% or nothing, it's WATCHMEN, because so much of the story is interwoven. Change one thing, change EVERYTHING. I'll watch it, give it the benefit of the doubt, but why the hell couldn't they just leave it as it was? I mean, to change the ending, you have to think you're a better writer than Alan fucking Moore - and that's a spectacularly dumbass place to even be in for starters...<P> Bottom line Quint - I'll watch it, but I'm not holding my breath. And to the likes of knowthyself, that smug little shit, I WILL be posting all my thoughts on it, good, bad or indifferent.<P> Just... WHY CHANGE IT AT ALL?!? Why not just NOT MAKE IT, rather than get 95% right and fuck up the final 5%? I REALLY don't get it...

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 11:19 a.m. CST

    Oh, and TDK's ending was dumb

    by spud mcspud

    All that shite about Harvey saving the city and being Gotham's white knight... When is the last time you EVER heard politicians speak in such a way about ANYONE?<P> The biggest suspension of disbelief in that movie was how deified and honourable the politicians like Harvey were made out to be. In reality, he'd be running for the Caymans with his hedge funds right about now with the rest of those highwayman robbing bastards. And Batman taking the rap doesn't make sense either. Why not just leave the murders unsolved - or better yet, pin them on the Joker? He's in custody, he's already killed loads, he's insane so his denial would fall on deaf ears - so why should Bats take the rap?<P> Without Heath in it, that'd have been a good-to-great movie at best. And crossing HEAT with a BATMAN movie only serves to make the costumed heroes and villains look more stupid - which is probably why they only gave Harvey his coin and no other costume. TDK's realism hurt the movie, not helped it...

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 11:21 a.m. CST

    Shout out to DANNY...

    by spud mcspud

    You fucking Professional. So this is where you've been!

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 11:26 a.m. CST

    @ spud mcspud

    by Fuck The Napkin

    "Dan actually gets to hit Ozy (What? How? He's nowhere near as fit, motivated or as trained!)"<br><br> Ozy lets him. He stands there and lets Dan take out his frustation on his face.<br><br> "Manhattan is actually convinced by Ozy that the frame job is a good idea (what?)"<br><br> Manhattan doesn't want to be on Earth any more so he doesn't care, and he sees that Ozy's plan to save the world is a logical one - same as in the book.<br><br> "Manhattan was unaware of what Ozy was doing (Yeah. A GOD that can sense everything else that goes on in the universe)"<br><br> Tachyons. Same as in the book.<br><br> "And that Dan sees what happens outside in the snow?"<br><br> Yeah, he's standing just outside the door, watching Rorschach and Manhattan have their conversation.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 11:27 a.m. CST

    I've seen Tales of the Black Freighter

    by Fuck The Napkin

    Saw the DVD and Under The Hood. FYI, he doesn't eat any RAW SHARK.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 11:30 a.m. CST

    Spud....and ALL PROFESSIONALS.


    I'm usually in the CoC's TWITCH TB. You guys are all welcome to join in anytime.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 11:52 a.m. CST

    I guess I just don't understand...

    by The Brain Machine

    I guess I just don't understand why so many people in this thread have decided they are not going to see the movie already. How if one thing they hold dear is changed or not in it, it's a deal breaker for them. <br> <br> If you are a fan of the genre, why would you not pay $10 to see it? That's the price of two comic books, or a McDonalds dinner! If you come to this site regularly, why have you decided not to see Watchmen? I'm asking a serious question. All of you reading this talkback are fans on the genre, and of the GN itself, right? You already have time and energy invested in this property to some extent. You are all fans of going to the Movies, right? <br> <br> The film has so much positive going for it - if it doesn't have everything that is in your mind about a Watchmen movie do you think it will lessen your love of the GN? In fact, I would argue that it will probably cause you to love the GN even more. <br> <br> Folks, this is NOT Phantom Manace. There is no grinning at the camera and shouting "Yippee!" I don't believe you will come out of the theater thinking Zach Snyder raped you or that you wasted your money. I found it to be a damn good movie, a fun time at the cinema with a lot of surprises - and more than a few moments of pure genius. So much of it works. Even if it only has 90% of everything you wanted in your Watchmen movie - this kind of effort deserves to be seen in the theater. Make up your own mind when you see it, but please don't ignore the effort that was made here. I believe a true attempt was made at giving something to us, the fans, to love. I believe it is also a film that will grow with each viewing - much like the graphic novel we all hold in such high regard. I for one can't wait to see it again, and to read all of your thoughts on the movie after it opens. <br> <br> Disagree with me if you want - that's cool. That's what film discussion is all about. Maybe you will hate it. But see it. Lets talk about it! Watchmen deserves to be discussed because it has so many cool themes in it. If you are dissing the film because of Slo-Mo, Makeup, or, God forbid, running time, then you are kind of missing the big picture. Zach Snyder has stepped up, and has shown that he is someone to watch. This movie will cause a lot of heated discussion and that's what AICN is all about. But to truly discuss the movie - you need to see the movie first. Don't just post a bunch of negative spew about something you haven't seen yet based on your preconceptions and a clip you saw on the net. There's plenty of time for that after you've seen it. <br> <br> So far, pretty much all of the writers on this site, and many others have told you that they loved it with a few reservations. None of these reviews have said the movie is Perfect. That should actually give you a little hope. These reviews are honest. <br> <br> How many of you who have said they aren't going to check this movie out went and saw FF2, Hancock or Wanted last year? Those were worth your $10, but not this? I think we've all been beaten down by disapointment in movies for so long that we're gun shy to see movies that "might" dissapoint us. I guess I can understand that a bit. Prequel Pain runs deep. This one has potential to really disapoint. I'm writing as a fan of the comic, and a fan of the genre - I was NOT disapointed. <br> <br> Pop in Catwoman or Batman and Robin to see just how wrong a comic adaptation can go... Yes there are a few drastic changes made to Watchmen, I agree - I don't like them all either, but this movie is not in a category with those flicks. Aren't you pumped to see what IS right with Watchmen? <br> <br> Think about the love you have for Blade Runner. Think about how, if you were a huge Phillip K Dick fan and you read about the changes that were made from his story - just how upset would you have been? How much negative press would have been heaped on Blade Runner had it been made today with talkbackers rpping it apart before they had even seen it? That movie had style, class and respect for the story, but it is very different from the story as written - and yet it is one of the most beloved movies in genre. Can you imagine deciding to not watch Blade Runner because you heard it was so changed from the story? Would you love Balde Runner any less? Re-issues are pretty rare these days - this deserves to be seen in the theater - with your friends. <br> <br> To see that 90% of greatness is pretty stunning on the big screen, and if you have the chance to see it in IMAX it will give your eyeballs at least a nice little bit of foreplay... possibly some heavy petting - maybe even take them all the way to third base. Isn't that what going to the movies is all about? <br> <br> Of course, these are just my opinions. Damn it - We got a Watchmen movie - something I never thought would happen! I loved it, and I think you will too if you go in accepting that it is an adaptation. Just don't write it off before hand because the adaptation isn't exactly what you wanted. <br> <br> Feel free to call me a plant or any other names below for posting an opinion - just try to be creative and original about it, OK?

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 11:59 a.m. CST

    spud mcspud

    by The Brain Machine

    A very valid argument there... Why change it at all? ...We'll talk next weekend.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 12:05 p.m. CST


    by The Brain Machine

    What would you think of Jackie Earle Hayey as Roland the Gunslinger? Just curious...

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 12:08 p.m. CST

    The Brain Machine


    Serious answer.....I have not read the source material. The more I hear about these characters and the story, the less interested I become. I thought the teaser on TDK was great. The more I see of it-- the less interested I become. I don't know why. There is just something flat feeling about it. I haven't had time to go to the movies very often these past few months-- so I don't really know if I'll go out of my way to see this. If someone offered me a free ticket....maybe. But I dunno. There is just nothing with the material that grabs me. Zach Snyder seems like a nice guy.....but FUCK. I absolutely despise his first 2 films. This looks like he has grown as a filmmaker, but still. The first two were bad enough to make me doubt his abilities for a very long time. On top of that add a weak looking cast, weak looking effects (exploding tank shot is horrid) and music that disappoints (from what I've heard) and there is just not much to get excited about. Again, this is the perspective of someone that has no allegiance to the source material. So someone like me getting excited is what this film will need to be a massive hit. I just don't see the general public getting excited over this. Its not enough to assume that the sheep will run to any superhero movie just because. I don't really see older people being interested in this, and I don't really see younger people (under 25) being interested in this.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 12:12 p.m. CST

    Brain Machine

    by Zarles

    People are yelling that they're not going to see it because it gives them something to yell about on the internet. Period. No more, no less. Like I said before, after they see it, they'll either start talking about it positively and try to pretend their negative bullshit never existed, or they'll simply continue talking shit even though they might have enjoyed the movie. Why? Because it gives them something to yell about on the internet. Period. No more, no less.<p><p>Oh, and Danny, fuck off. Don't you have a bridge to be climbing back under? I believe we've already answered your three questions, shitlips.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 12:18 p.m. CST


    by The Brain Machine

    Perhaps you are right. I posted in the early review, that I don't believe this flick will cross over to the audience that TDK did. I don't think teenage chicks will get it, and many might be bored. There is no way I can see this getting the box office that TDK did - ever. Which is why it needs the support of the genre fans. Let's face it though, the next coupe weeks, are gong to be killer box office - I just think it will have a slippery slope after that. On DVD Watchmen will destroy for a very long time. <br> <br> Personally, I alway felt Snyder was a step above the likes of Eli Roth, and Brett Ratner, so this movie paid off for me. He's getting better with each film. I am very interested in your view of the film, however. Especially as someone who has not read the comics - believe it or not, you have some pull on this board - people at least know who you are so I welcome your view on the film. Maybe you'll hate it. But I think you'll dig it, man.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 12:20 p.m. CST


    by The Brain Machine

    ahhh yes. The anonymous bitch board. AICN offers a great place to whine, don't it?

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 12:25 p.m. CST


    by The Brain Machine

    Curious. You are obviously a fan of movies, and a genre fan. You obviously have strong opinions on what you like and dislike. Why have you not read, what is considered by many, to be one of the greatest comic book series? <br> <br> Were you waiting for the movie to see it uneffected by the source material?

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 12:28 p.m. CST



  • Feb. 25, 2009, 12:34 p.m. CST

    The Brain Machine


    No I wasn't waiting. I'm just really into the comics/graphic novel scene. I never was. Not even as a kid. I've only read a few over the years. Moore's stuff does seem interesting though. I bought a complete book of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen which I still haven't touched. The fanciful adventurous spirit of that story attracts me more. If I do have time to read, it usually ends up being some boring shit like The World Without Us-- to make me feel smarter than I am. I know its hailed as a great piece of Literature, but so is The Grapes of Wrath. I haven't read that either. When I do see Watchmen, if I like it-- I will most likely read it.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 12:34 p.m. CST

    I'm just really NOT into the comics scene I meant....


  • Feb. 25, 2009, 12:35 p.m. CST

    I ceased to get excited.....

    by donkey_lasher soon as Quint said it wasn't as good as Dark Knight.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 12:37 p.m. CST

    The problem with this movie...

    by Colegegraduit

    What this film’s biggest problem is stems largely from the same problem Spielberg’s War of the Worlds had. You can hardly hate Spielberg for trying to bring a classic 1950’s story to the modern CGI masses. Except by the time Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning strolled through the infamous ending we’re all aware of by now, the “alien Armageddon” story had been seen too many times already, and much better, to give two bits about the original story. Mind you; I’m not talking about the people who hated the upgrades to the story elsewhere, or the people who hate CGI, or the people who hate Tom Cruise. I’m talking about actual people who actually went to see the re-imagined War of the Worlds, saw the same CLASSIC ending, and found it “cliché.” Seriously. Some even tried to deconstruct it and ask how the aliens couldn’t have planned for…that. Screw you. It’s a classic story! So is Watchmen…and that, friend, is the problem. Diehard fanboys need to chill and confess that the Watchmen concept has been deconstructed, saluted, copied, Xeroxed, or completely ripped off, so many times by now, I doubt any Watchmen movie could reach the agnostic public with anything other than a “meh, saw it before,” no matter how many 30-somethings insist it’s a CLASSIC story. We have already seen heroes in conflict in movies. We’ve already seen heroes that may have a very thin line between the villains. We’ve already seen movies about superheroes who <gasp!> kill someone. Oh, and yeah; I’m well prepared for ALL the asshats who will compare the title character to Blue Man Group (aaaaaaauuuuggghhh!). Get ready for a whole lot of ignorant, “Seeeen iiiiit” style reviews from the 20-somethings. Yes, YOU AND *I* know; it’s fracking Watchmen, man! Indeed it is. Though keep in mind this is not the Watchmen comic. It’s a movie BASED on Watchmen. On the one hand you have a movie that will look cliché if identical to the story ripped off so many times already. On the other hand if you don’t show the original ending as it was, what’s the point? Yes, this movie deserves a chance, though be fair : this movie could EASILY suck, no matter how many fanboy critics insist otherwise. I hope I’m wrong. I’m probably not.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 12:48 p.m. CST

    Colegegraduit, I hated War of the Worlds ...

    by MorpheusTheSandman

    (and I am a huge Spielberg fan), but I loved this one. And you guys give way too much meaning to the changed ending. Yes, there is no squid, but the way the ending goes and feels isn't that different from the book.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 1:02 p.m. CST

    a mediocre rating here it seems...figures.

    by FleshMachine

    300 sucked.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 1:03 p.m. CST

    The issue of making it a period (not cunt blood) film...


    I was thinking about this the other day. And everyone was all disturbed at the studio's original intention of making it contemporary and making terrorism the central nuclear threat and all that. I understand people's concern over shit like this. But maybe it would have worked better to illustrate the serious threat. This was mentioned in someone's review that looking back on the cold war-- it now seems nostalgic and cute almost. But at the time it was very fucking scary for some. And it was written as a contemporary piece. So to make it now-- and to make it period it loses a lot of the political impact because this generation really can't relate to the sentiment of that era. I like the idea of a film being set in a period 80's......but still....I wonder if it would attract more people if it was set in modern day and dealt with issues we can relate to today.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 1:06 p.m. CST

    If it's not better than Dark Knight it's a failure

    by ev1ldead

    because compared to the Watchmen graphic novel Dark Knight is nothing more than a very good Die Hard Rip Off.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 1:12 p.m. CST

    DGDB - you just said you aren't really...

    by Cap'n Jack

    ...into GN's and comics, and you have the balls to have an opinion on this film. F you sir. You have lost any credibility you may have once had.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 1:22 p.m. CST


    by The Brain Machine

    This is THE biggest problem facing John Carter (A Princess of Mars). <br> <br> The story has been so ripped off, there is no way a straight adaptation can be made and not seem cliche'd to today's audience. Personally though, I can't wait for that one either.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 1:23 p.m. CST

    Cap'n Jack -- do you have a daughter?


  • Feb. 25, 2009, 1:28 p.m. CST

    no...why, need a date?

    by Cap'n Jack

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Yeah. I was hoping she just turned 18....


    .....and had curly dark hair, a small waist, and massive tits. <P>No? Okay. I'll keep looking.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 1:43 p.m. CST

    nah...why is 18 necessary?

    by Cap'n Jack

    that never stopped you before.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 2:24 p.m. CST

    The Brain Machine

    by spud mcspud

    Good reply - I'm going to see the movie (though Mrs Spud-To-Be remembers me absolutely going apeshit after watching LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN, and her innocent "it wasn't all THAT bad" comment led to me ranting at her for the entire evening about how SHIT that movie was - so she's understandably not too psyched to see WATCHMEN with me) so I can accurately discuss what I like and dislike about it (I'm in the UK, so we don't get it until the 6th March I think) - but all my points thus far are taken from reading what others have said in their reviews.<P> That said...<P> I'm particularly impressed to see you bring up BLADE RUNNER - although it's pretty much as far from this example as you'd think. DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP? was - like all Dick novels - massively creative, inventive, and very cerebral - the kind of thing that I think would benefit from having a guy like Matthew Fox star as Deckard (go with me on this - I imagine a straightforward adap of DADOES? to be A LOT of people staring into camera with much voice-overing). It's a lot of philosophy and existentialism, as well as sociology and religion, wrapped up in a future chase story, much like WATCHMEN. Other than the names of the characters, the basic plot of hunting humanoid Replicants, and the basics of who the Replicants are and who created them, there is absolutely no reason to believe BLADE RUNNER the movie has anything at all to do with the book. The two are so different, they should have just changed the names and ignored any links to the Dick book at all. BLADE RUNNER is a classic in its own way - as a set/costume design classic before anything else - but it's got nowhere near the same intellectual scope in it as the novel does, even with Rutger Hauer doing the heavy lifting as a very cerebral Roy Batty.<P> Love the movie, love the book - but the two are light years apart.<P> WATCHMEN I just don't get. Why go all the way, only to change the ending - and not just change it, but downsize it? The threat isn't big enough or alien enough now: Manhattan is already hated and distrusted with the whole "does he cause cancer?" subplot, so why make this such an obvious and trite ending? The world wouldn't unite across ALL borders if it were Manhattan that they blamed - they'd unite against the US, who created Manhattan, and the mistrust and fear and conflict that Ozy obliterated with that audacious squid plan is lost completely. The Manhattan ending wouldn't end conflict and bind the world together - it would temporarily suspend hostilities for a while. Give it a decade with no-one seeing Jon again, and the Cold War would be game on again. Fucking feeble storytelling, and we haven't even got to the Comedian being so demoralised by the revelation - when the revelation being Ozy framing Manhattan, far from demoralising Comedian, would probably have been something the Comedian would have WANTED to happen - you can imagine him enjoying this secret knowledge, maybe even wanting to be a part of it! He sure as shit wouldn't give up the way he would when he uncovers the squid plan in the GN - which is so big, so spectacular, so audacious, that he KNOWS it will work and thus make his brutal "heroism", and that of ALL costumed heroes, completely redundant. The squid plan would just eradicate all conflict for much longer than the Manhattan frame job would, and so the Comedian realises there's no place for him any more. There's PLENTY of room for a Comedian in a post-Manhattan frame job world - in fact, there's a need for him. He'd be the guy planning, on the 10th anniversary of Jon's leaving the Earth, to attack the Russkies.<P> In the end, I feel they shit out of giving the movie the real ending it deserved - and fell back on good old populist lowest-common-denominator programming to give this mocvie a shitty ending that the allegedly-faithful previous 90% did not deserve. Why come so far, just to change that ending? And there's no way it can possibly make as much sense as the squid does? It just makes Ozy look more like a company spy and saboteur, rather than the laterally thinking, omniscient evil genius of the comics who commits the ultimate atrocity to create the ultimate detente.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 2:30 p.m. CST

    The Brain Machine, I get where you're coming from

    by MorpheusTheSandman

    but still, you are criticing a director for changing the ending of a book you haven't read for a movie you haven't seen ...

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 2:51 p.m. CST


    by The Brain Machine

    I have read the ook, and I saw the film on Monday in Austin.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 2:51 p.m. CST


    by The Brain Machine

    Silly Fat Fingers... Book.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 2:54 p.m. CST

    I agree.

    by The Brain Machine

    Your points are very well taken, and I agree with you. However the film in it's own right damn bad ass. Not just "bad" as League is. Now THAT was a crappy adaptation. I think we can all agree on that. I look forward to hearing your views on the flick in 10 days!

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 3:51 p.m. CST

    The Dark Knight sucked so...

    by alienindisguise

    if this isn't as good then yikes!!! Too bad about the old age makeup. I wonder why that's so tough for fx crews to get right.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 4:24 p.m. CST

    Brain Machine, I stand corrected ...

    by MorpheusTheSandman

    To quote R.E.M.: I think I thought you were someone else ...

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 5:18 p.m. CST

    I have seen this movie, and here's why it is better than the boo

    by Speed Fricassee

    The new ending works SO much more convincingly within the firmly established rules of the WATCHMEN universe. Alan Moore should be so lucky -- the "squid" NEVER worked, book or not, and it is a stupid, desperate concept; the squid should have gotten cut during the draft stages. Moore almost had it... he SHOULD have gotten it... he set up his own potentially perfect climactic payoff... but then he threw his hands up in the air and said, "Fuck it! Squid! It's the best i can come up with! I'm supposedly a genius, and my fans will buy anything I write, so use the squid!" Poor ol' arrogant Moore. Snyder and his team drew a much better ending from within the book's own rock-solid setups, and, as a result, makes for a much, MUCH better story overall. That, and the theatrical cut righteously cut the ridiculous Black-Pirate-ship-story-whatthefuckie. My hat's off to Mr Snyder.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 5:29 p.m. CST

    Speed Fricassee...go fuck yourself

    by bacci40

    you are wrong

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 5:30 p.m. CST


    by Speed Fricassee

    Thanks for the well-defended counterpoint. You've changed my mind. The squid is brilliant! What was I thinking?

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 5:53 p.m. CST

    Jaws Wayne & Spud mc Spud

    by metaluna

    Thanks Jaws. Glad you liked the post. I really can't undertsand all the fuss about this movie. You'd think it was Proust or something. I'm sure it'll be a fun thing to watch, but nothing to take seriously or think about in any meaningful way. As for comparing Watchmen to Blade Runner Spud, I can't see that. One has people with unbelievable superpowers and the other is a small glimpse into our scary, plausible future.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 6:11 p.m. CST

    but what if you don't like TDK OR Rorschach?

    by necgray

    Let me rephrase that. I thought TDK was highly overrated and underwritten, though fun. But it had script issues. So you make me nervous when you say, "It's not as good as Dark Knight." Well, Dark Knight was, in my opinion, not the end-all and be-all that everyone here makes it. <p> Rorschach always struck me as the worst aspects of Batman, and I always felt that his right-wing, vaguely fascist (vaguely) mentality was never challenged enough in the graphic novel. <p>So am I going to jizz... in my pants the way you guys seem to be?

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 6:29 p.m. CST


    by menstrual_blitz

    I'm not a fan of TDK either and Rorschach isn't my favorite character...I wouldn't even qualify fascist the way you did (at least, not in the looser, more ahistorical sense). <p> My favorite is Dr. Manhattan. And the Dr. Manhattan stuff looks pretty great. That said, I'm still worried about how this is going to play out. I'm worried that they'll make some aspects too explicit, and we'll lose the sense of the characters as unreliable narrators.

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 8:27 p.m. CST

    Speed Fricassee

    by bacci40

    if after 20 years, umpteen threads on the subject, a top 100 novel according to time and multiple still need someone to explain why you are so fucking dense and way too retarded to have even attempted to read the i said, go fuck yourself

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 10:07 p.m. CST

    Anyone seen any real reviews yet ?

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    What do the non-geeks think ?

  • Feb. 25, 2009, 10:33 p.m. CST


    by Speed Fricassee

    What the fuck's wrong with you, son? I said you changed my mind, that I have finally been convinced that the squid is brilliant. Are you pissed because I forgot to actually thank you or something? BTW, TIME also wanted to make Osama bin Laden the "Man of the Year" in 2001. You gonna defend that, too?

  • Feb. 26, 2009, 12:34 a.m. CST

    You're the man, Quint.

    by Psycho_Kenshin

    I like what you're doing, you've got classiness. And I can't wait to watch these Watchmen, they rock. Manhattan is the balls.

  • Feb. 26, 2009, 1:41 a.m. CST

    non-geeks to Miyamoto_Musashi:

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    NERRRRRRRRDDSSSS!!! That is all. /wish I could post a pic of Ogre. C'mon, AICN! Let me post pics, dammit! This TB style is so 1996.

  • Feb. 26, 2009, 5:23 a.m. CST

    Malin Ackerman talks about her butt

    by mr blandings


  • Feb. 26, 2009, 5:58 a.m. CST

    better Malin Ackerman link

    by mr blandings she really does talk about her butt

  • Feb. 26, 2009, 8:57 a.m. CST

    speed is right

    by Arcadian Del Sol

    the frieghter and the squid were 8th grade level fiction, and a giant blubbery brain-squid popping out of a portal to mind-fry 200 people would look be Team America levels of silly up on the big screen.<p> unwad your panties and deal with it. If the Squid was in the movie, they could have hired Frank Oz to be it's voice and it wouldn't be any more silly than it already is.<p> If I were Moore, the ending would have been a Roswell style War Of The Worlds saucer with green men falling out of it shooting the hell out of Times Square. Same effect, same 'what the f....' impact on the global population of the Watchmen universe, same results. It changes nothing other than greatly lowering the orbitally high levels of sheer silliness.

  • Feb. 26, 2009, 9:05 a.m. CST

    Malin's radio interview

    by Arcadian Del Sol

    Woman seriously needs to lay off the smokes. She already has the voice of a 68 year old woman.

  • Feb. 26, 2009, 3:44 p.m. CST


    by DoctorWho?

    Maybe you would have lunged at the chance to detonate the bomb on that ferry because you are a coward. You're the one projecting YOUR opinion onto the screen in this case. <p> Comparing it to people jumping out of a burning tower on 9/11 is a ridiculous least on the ferry there is a choice at hand....those poor souls on 9/11 couldn't have stopped themselves from "jumping" any more than you could stop your hand recoiling from an open flame. Sure, Nolan could have played it more chaotic and tense perhaps but don't project your weasle-like nature onto the rest of humanity.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 7:29 a.m. CST

    Testing out multiple accounts?

    by orcus