Movie News

KUFO’s Fatboy Is Saddened To Assert That Alan Moore Was Correct: WATCHMEN Is ‘Unfilmable’!!

Published at: March 7, 2009, 4:24 a.m. CST

Notes to consider before continuing with my review of Watchmen: 1) It will not contain a plot synopsis. Over the last two weeks of online reviews and musings, magazine covers and myriad articles across multiple forms of media, I’m pretty sure you got the idea by now. In the interests of catering to those who might be making this the first review of Watchmen they’ve read, here’s the gist: What if superheroes were real? Well, they’d probably be pretty fucked up individuals. Let’s examine that, shall we? WATCHMEN. 2) It will not be novel length. You’re gonna be spending almost 3 hours with the movie as it is, probably after spending countless hours already in the course of reading the book multiple times. Spending another 20 minutes spinning your scroll wheel to read my character-by-character musings all the way down to “Stage Manager at Jon’s interview taping” is probably a little much. Speaking of which, that Stage Manager guy was Lt. Thorne from Battlestar Pegasus and I was happy to see him in a big-budget superhero blockbuster because otherwise he’d just be that bald dick who rapes hot asian robots and that’s a hell of a role to be typecast in. And now, The Review Itself: Alan Moore is a crotchety, pissy old bastard. Adaptations of his works are typically, in the oft-used critical parlance of our times, teh suck. His magnum opus is “Watchmen,” a deconstruction of the superhero, a 12 issue miniseries so dense it could be classified as an element on the periodic table, its entry represented by a shifting inkblot. Alan Moore has said it is an unfilmable property. Alan Moore says a lot of things, so it’s easy to dismiss his goofy, hairy ass. Dude wears those gaudy Saturday market rings where a purple rock forms the torso of a pewter scorpion. Genius or no, you can’t take a guy rocking one of those things that seriously. Unfortunately, Moore was right this time. Watchmen is unfilmable. Or more to the point, the things that make Watchmen work haven’t been captured on film. Zack Snyder tried. The effort expended, the sweat, the passion for the book, it’s up there. It’s visible. This is a beautifully constructed work of art, much like Jon Osterman’s Glass Ship on Mars. It cracks easily and doesn’t hold together too well. I find myself using the character of Doctor Manhattan himself as a stand-in for the movie overall. There are moments where it coalesces into something substantial, where it ties together plot, theme, performance, editing and music into something that transcends the book and achieves its own sort of magic, a magic I’m sure our favorite shaggy wizard might even appreciate, but like Jon in his early days of achieving minor godhood, Snyder can’t maintain the form, and the momentum dissipates in flashes and blasts of loud noise. The movie spends about half its time in a cinematic uncanny valley. Panel-perfect transitions from page to screen, density of visual information translated flawlessly, moments that for all the sincerity behind the scenes, comes off as superficial. “300” was thematically thin, but felt fuller, more robust than the sum of its parts. “Watchmen” is the opposite, maybe because there’s so much more going on under the surface than Miller’s sophomoric, flexing masculine fantasy-epic, the stuff between the panels didn’t make it to the screen intact. It’s unfair to compare the movie to the book at every turn, to catalog changes like an autistic continuity nerd dragging a red pen across a series of boxes like “no squid. Gets mask back from psychiatrist. Rorschach’s using meat cleavers now. Adrian’s triggering things instead of just doing them.” But I almost can’t blame those pedantic fun-sucker types, because if the movie was working right, viewers would be too enamored with the film to concern themselves with changes. This plays closer to a Chris Columbus-esque racing through of collected moments, as if Snyder was directing via his own checklist. It felt less like a film Snyder made for Snyder, and more like a film made for the kind of people who create memes on the internet as a form of film criticism. Maybe studio interference has something to do with that. Maybe with 10-15 minutes of the movie reintegrated, the connective tissue holds the movie together better, the pacing isn’t so herky-jerk disjointed, the characters are given time to breathe and become their own moving, living things onscreen. But that’s a lot of burden to place on 10-15 minutes, and the movie has to stand on it’s own merits once the film moves through the projector, and those merits are these: It’s pretty as hell. Snyder knows how to block a scene, how to move his camera, and generally how to make almost everything in front of his lens look, for lack of a better phrase, “Fuckin cool.” His speed-ramping fetish (overstated online in the last few months) is very subdued in this movie, but when he uses it, it’s quite effective. Jeffrey Dean Morgan as Eddie Blake (The Comedian,) Jackie Earl Haley as Walter Kovacs (Rorschach,) and Patrick Wilson as Dan Dreiberg (Nite Owl II) inhabit their characters in ways that are faithful to the text and also alive on their own. My girl offered this observation on the train ride home: “It’s like the movie kept forgetting to breathe. It spent all this time holding its breath, and only exhaled maybe once or twice.” These actors, more often than not, were remembering to work those lungs. The action sequences are very well done. The Prison break reminded me of Oldboy, which really surprised me. The Alley fight intercut with Manhattan’s interview, the sequences flashing back to the origins of both Rorschach and Doc Manhattan are probably the best things Snyder has ever done, the closest he comes to proving Moore wrong. But this leads us to some the demerits of the film: Malin Akerman as Laurie Juspeczyk (Silk Spectre II) and Matthew Goode as Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias) are kind of just there. They don’t suck outright, nor do they impress. They are ciphers. Robert Wisden as Richard Nixon and Carla Gugino as Sally Juspeczyk (Silk Spectre) are buried under bad old age makeup and turn in hammy, lazy performances. Billy Crudup’s voice work as Jon Osterman (Doctor Manhattan) is good, but the decision to make the Doc all CGI was ultimately, a bad one. They apparently had someone specifically working on the jiggle physics of his wang, but they couldn’t crack the problem of making his mouth move correctly. So many cool little things going on just under the surface of his translucent skin, wasted because when they needed Jon to emote even in the minor degrees someone as omniscient and detached as Jon is, they couldn’t get it right. Again, we’re in the realm of uncanny valley, it’s pretty disorienting, and not in the manner I felt upon first reading the book, and not just because humanity was saved after the smartest man in the world teleported a telepathic space squid into New York and ostensibly got away with it–Oh yeah, obligatory comment on the changed ending: The film’s replacement works on its own, full of sick, eerie majesty, disorienting in the right way–Anyway, upon finishing the book, I knew I didn’t get it all, but I got enough, and was so swept along by the relentlessness of it that I wanted to dive back in. I’m not so sure I want to dive back into this translation. I heard myself telling people “Well, I had to read the book about 2 or 3 times to really pull the whole thing together, maybe it’s the same with this movie.” Maybe not. Maybe that’s me doing the fanboy thing and trying to stave off disappointment by hoping a repeat viewing would open up new layers. I was hoping that maybe the text was being repurposed into a deconstruction of superhero movies in the same way the book tore apart the conventions of superhero storytelling. But I don’t think that’s what I saw. I saw a shiny, pretty, almost panel-perfect adaptation that played more subdued and buttoned-down than anything else. Reverential and respectful, yes, but a little staid and rote too. My dad used to buy top of the line stereo equipment, and then forbid anyone to actually play CD’s on it. He was afraid that he’d break it and ruin his investment. This movie feels like Snyder was so afraid to break “Watchmen,” that he didn’t actually use it properly. Maybe this film represents the best crack anyone is gonna get at taking one of Time magazines 100 greatest novels of the 20th century, and capturing its dour, introspective, paranoid, and nihilistically hopeful tone on celluloid. Maybe it’s just that the old hairy wizard with the stupid pinky rings is right this time, unfortunately: Maybe “Watchmen” is simply unadaptable. Bobby "Fatboy" Roberts Afternoons, 101.1 KUFO-FM fatboy@kufo.com www.cortandfatboy.com

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 4, 2009, 12:42 p.m. CST

    People who haven't read it...

    by Frank Black

    Seem like they will appreciate it more.

  • March 4, 2009, 12:43 p.m. CST

    The inevitable remake in 5-10 years may be better.

    by F-18

  • March 4, 2009, 12:47 p.m. CST

    Um

    by belasco_house

    they've made a film of it.. it must be a little bit filmable

  • March 4, 2009, 12:48 p.m. CST

    Wow...

    by Squeak Jones

    I hope that's not the case, but regardless...GREAT review. My first priority is that WATCHMEN work as a film rather than stay 100% faithful to an "unfilmable" comic, but I have to admit your words worry me. I got my ticket, let's see what happens.

  • March 4, 2009, 12:53 p.m. CST

    I don't care!

    by BiggusDickus

    I've got tickets for the London Imax next week and even if it's crap, I still get to eat nachos in the dark for three hours.<p>And 80-85% of a good 'Watchmen' movie is still going to be wa-a-y better than most blockbusters these days.<p> You can shove 'Toyformers 2' up your arse.

  • March 4, 2009, 12:53 p.m. CST

    We bitch and moan and bitch and moan

    by skimn

    about the neverending stream of remakes and sequels and prequels and more fuckin remakes, so Snyder films the "unfilmable"...a three hour effort of an original epic piece of work, that sounds to me, to be pretty much a successful adaptation. So what do we do? Bitch and moan and bitch and moan...

  • March 4, 2009, 12:54 p.m. CST

    I've read it..

    by Frank Black

    Once! Brilliant? A little. Will I compare the film with the original? Not for a second. Alan Moore is a great writer, but it would also seem like he is a bit of an ass. I think younger generations who have been raised on great special effects are spoiled and jaded, but those of us who were born before 1985 have an appreciation for how movies used to look and what 70's action, fantasy and super-heroes movies were like. I have not seen The Watchmen but what I do know is that the previews look better than most of what I have seen from a movie since Fight Club or the first Matrix.

  • March 4, 2009, 12:54 p.m. CST

    So its good but unfilmable?

    by ScottinDC

    That's about all I took from this review; in other words, go i and enjoy it on its own merit...but don't watch it if you're Alan Moore or an insufferable prick acting as his stand in.

  • March 4, 2009, 12:55 p.m. CST

    I feel bad for Snyder

    by Maxer

    Going in, his number one priority was obviously to please the fans of the comic like us AICNers. Now though, it looks like we've gotten our wish and the main complaint among critics is that the film is too rigid of an adaptation to exist as its own entity. All this proves is that fanboys are wrong and filmmakers should make the film they want, not what they think others will want. I agree with Frank Black - I kind of wish I had seen the movie first and then read the book because seeing a beautiful film in motion and then being able to go back to the book and see the extra details that couldn't fit in the movie is alot more satisfying than the other way around.

  • March 4, 2009, 12:55 p.m. CST

    No surprises

    by donkey_lasher

    I've been hearing some bad reviews of this movie, not just from comic book fans, but from people who've never touched a funnybook in their lives. Terry Gilliam agrees with Moore and I'm inclined to agree with him.<p> I'm not convinced about the positive reviews on this site either.....remember Harry was man-milking in his pants about Indy 4??

  • March 4, 2009, 12:55 p.m. CST

    Exactly

    by VWantsRevenge

    This is what I was trying to say over in the "See WATCHMEN in Austin MySpace" article a few weeks back. The movie, to me, is just like 300, and just like a supermodel, gorgeous to look at, but ultimately nothing really going on underneath the surface. <br> It's not surprising that Harry went nerdcore on the movie. He loves everything now and his opinion is so completely biased by how many cool industry friends he can amass he's fast becoming a joke. Like I said, I saw this movie outside of an audience packed to the gills with people who were aching to see this thing. There were maybe fifteen people in the room total, so I didn't get all the reactions and nerding out that the Austin screening most certainly had. <br> <br> In the end, I'm sure most people are going to like it, much like 300, but some, like me, will be disappointed in the whole of the movie. I'm sorry, I won't give Malin Akerman a pass... she sucked.<br> <br> And to the douchebox in the other TB that asserted because I said I saw this weeks in advance of it's opening that I also "saw Nolan's new Batman film" dude get a clue. It's not all that difficult to see movies in early stages if you know the right people, or work in the right places.

  • March 4, 2009, 12:56 p.m. CST

    Kind of a schitzo review

    by REVENGE_of_FETT

    It's panel-perfect, but misses the mark? I know sometimes you can't quite put your finger on something being "wrong" with a film and it sounds like that's what "fatboy" is trying to relay. But considering the director's cut is going to be like an hour longer, I'm sure it will pad out better and give it more room to breath. movies in theaters are just extended trailers for the Blu-ray anyway. 8^)

  • March 4, 2009, 12:56 p.m. CST

    So much for "will not be novel length"

    by jimmy_009

    Another reviewer in love with his own words. Just get to the meat of it, I don't need you to prove you're funny or clever. Otherwise a decent review that will help keep my expectations down.

  • March 4, 2009, 12:58 p.m. CST

    no such thing as "unfilmable"

    by FleshMachine

    its a silly concept. anything can be made into a movie...anything.

  • March 4, 2009, 12:59 p.m. CST

    'Great' films...

    by BiggusDickus

    My favourite film is 'Highlander'. It is not a 'great' film. It is risible in places and the effects are shonky, but it resonates in my head and I will love it forever.<p>'Apocalypse Now', by all accounts, is a 'great' film, but sadly, it bores the living shit out of me.<p>Eye of the beholder, people...

  • March 4, 2009, 12:59 p.m. CST

    Okay..

    by casale2a

    I don't post on these boards often, but I have to right now. I don't know what the hell this dude is talking about. Maybe he just read the comic too much and had his standards way up high where no one can reach because I normally agree with the people who post reviews on Aint It Cool. But, this is bullshit. I thought this movie was amazing. I mean I never read the comic book, but I'm definitely going to read it now. The action, the violence, the way the movie looked all were awesome. And the acting, I thought was not bad at all. Except kinda with Malin Akerman she wasn't the best, but she wasn't bad. I thought it was definitely one of the best comic book based movies and that people should give it a chance! Go in there open minded and not with their expectations way up high because after all like I said I never read the comic book, but I definitely will now.

  • March 4, 2009, 12:59 p.m. CST

    Sounds like internal Geek conflict

    by mukhtabi

    Personally, if the film is ANY good at all, that's good enough for me. I recall great cinematic adaptations of the past: No Country for Old Men, Gone With the Wind, Dr. Strangelove, etc. None of them capture more than 90% of the text. If the spirit is there, that's enough. So that's the question I take with me this weekend into watching Watchmen: Is the spirit intact?

  • March 4, 2009, 12:59 p.m. CST

    I've never understood the wholoe "unfilmable" thing....

    by REVENGE_of_FETT

    It's a COMIC BOOK! That means it's essentially a storyboard! How could that possibly be "unfilmable"?

  • March 4, 2009, 1 p.m. CST

    Stop with the "unfilmable" shit

    by slone13

    You pretentious assholes. Dave Gibbons illustrations are THE perfect storyboards. "Unfilmable" my fucking ass.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:01 p.m. CST

    Gilliam said is was "unfilmmabe," too.

    by Light_Tweaker

    And of course it fucking is.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:02 p.m. CST

    Gilliam said it was "unfilmable," too.

    by Light_Tweaker

    And of course it fucking is. [EDITBUTTONFAIL]

  • March 4, 2009, 1:02 p.m. CST

    "superficial"..yep exatly what i feared from those previews

    by FleshMachine

    looks like watchmen..but feels like nothing.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:03 p.m. CST

    skimm is right

    by Arteska

    And Frank Black too. Bitching and moaning has effectively replaced enthusiasm and legitimate enthusiasm in fandom now begins and effectively ends with the release of trailers. It's fine to be disappointed but not as a default posture. This internet thing has become about as much fun as if Starlog had been written by Kael, Sarris and Reed back in the day. And don't take that to mean we shouldn't give a damn.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:04 p.m. CST

    Same goes for "unadaptable" crap, too

    by slone13

    KUFO's Fatboy is a fucking moron, too, by the way.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:04 p.m. CST

    Nothing is unfilmable

    by terry1978

    Every single fictional property in existence can be turned into a moving picture in some fashion, whether by animation or live action. That just smacks of condescending elitism.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:06 p.m. CST

    WAAAAHHHH!!! WAAAAAHHH!!! WAAAAHH!!

    by dancetothebeatofthelivingdead

    Oh God, I just love the irony of this review. The thought that Snyder loses the emotion and impact of the comic book in an effort to get every little single minor detail correct for all the whiny fucking internet geeks; the same geeks who have spent the last year and a half whining like babies about any minor deviation they see is hilarious. The irony of losing the entire movie in an effort to please all detail nazi crybabies is epic.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:07 p.m. CST

    It's true though, I had to read at at least three times...

    by Royston Lodge

    ...just to wrap my brain around the idea that Dr. Manhattan knows what will happen in the future but is powerless to change it, including his own surprise at being told stuff that, really, he already knows. I had to watch Crash (the David Cronenberg one) a couple of times before I truly appreciated what was going on. Ditto for 2001: A Space Odyssey and Eyes Wide Shut.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:09 p.m. CST

    Frank Black

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

    It will be interesting for me as I have I-Max tickets for it Saturday, and other than knowing the characters ever so slightly, I've never read it.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:10 p.m. CST

    Schlong Physics are Easy...

    by zinc_chameleon

    But Lip Sync is an art in itself. If Snyder's makeup people couldn't get old-age makeup right, I'm not surprised they missed on lip-sync. I've created demon lip-sync heads with 24 to 30 morph targets, and that's just enough to create convincing vowels. How much mo-cap did they do with Billy Crudup? Even with glowing eyes, tiny orbital muscle moves are still necessary. So far only Davy Jones has worked for me.Check out: http://tinyurl.com/dd2ck6 to see what can work for just eyes.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:11 p.m. CST

    Whatever.

    by riskebiz

    I think this reviewer would've nick-picked any final film of "WATCHMEN". He can't see the forest through the trees ... in fact, he's on his hands and knees going over it with a microscope and forgot to enjoy himself.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:14 p.m. CST

    boo-fucking-hoo

    by Richard Richard Mayhew

    I'm so fucking sick of people poo-pooing about adaptations as if they'd ever really live up to the lived experience of having worked through the material in its original medium. WATCHMEN isn't unfilmable and Alan Moore is an ass. The experience of taking any book and adapting is as a movie is never the same experience.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:14 p.m. CST

    Gee, who would you get to film...

    by mrfan

    the unfilmable then? Always amazes me how many so-called fans of comic adaptations piss and moan because their precious comic isn't a movie. When the opportunity arises then it just isn't good enough. I bet half of the people complaining will the first in the movie line, buy their popcorn and soft drink, and race to the front row giggling like little school girls. This will be followed by trip home to their computer. Then they will post negative comments on AICN. It's a cycle I have yet seen unbroken.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:15 p.m. CST

    Everybody's a critic

    by InActionMan

    http://tinyurl.com/bxnb3s

  • March 4, 2009, 1:16 p.m. CST

    only bad/disappointed review i've read

    by zom-bot.com

    so, you must feel good that you were different.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:17 p.m. CST

    I have no expectations other than a good flick

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

    so with the exception of any obvious changes with this, or any novel/comic adaptations, all the whiners just need to keep their mouths shut, thank the artist for allowing his work to be on the big screen, thank the actors and directors etc. Having said that I'll be the first to say I get more disappointe with the Harry Potter movies as they progress because large chunks of the books are being left out. I am glad Deathly Hallows is officially going to be two movies.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:17 p.m. CST

    People who've never read the comic are loving the movie

    by slone13

    <p>Let's be honest, no matter WHAT Snyder or ANYONE says, you're an imbecile if you actually think this movie was made for the fans of the comic.</p>

  • March 4, 2009, 1:20 p.m. CST

    This movie is gonna make a ton of money

    by Professor Falcon

    Whether the fanboys love it or hate it.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Fatboy we need more of ...

    by wowsah156

    your cinema remixes please. how about something from watchmen to represent its good side and its limitations on screen. Get all that emotion out your system.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:23 p.m. CST

    ...and Alan Moore is completely WRONG

    by Professor Falcon

    The comic is completely filmable. If it wasn't, there'd be no movie showing in the theatres. But there is. Because it WAS filmed. Suck on THAT, Moore, you miserable fuck.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:25 p.m. CST

    Shut up, Fatboy!

    by SpyGuy

    Kyle Brovlofski speaks the truth. No story is "unfilmable."

  • March 4, 2009, 1:25 p.m. CST

    Maybe you should just TALK ABOUT THE DAMN MOVIE !!!

    by PTSDPete

    I don't give a flying FUCK as to what the damn book had meant to you. IS IT GOOD OR NOT ?!? </p>Sick of this</p>

  • March 4, 2009, 1:25 p.m. CST

    H gets his mask from the psychiatrist...WHAT? WHAT?

    by Nickn328

    Fuck it! This movie's dead to me now!

  • March 4, 2009, 1:26 p.m. CST

    Like reviews fuckin matter anyway....

    by SlyAndTheFamilyStallone

    Watchmen came out of early screenings with fairly positive reviews. Now the fanboys are finally getting to see it and putting out some mixed reviews. The sycophant virus will soon take over, mutate and by next week we'll all be bashing this film, saying its the worst piece of shit ever and using phrases like "jumped the squid" and why?....because it's more fun to bash than praise, and getting laughs makes us popular (with other pale nerds sitting in their basement).

  • March 4, 2009, 1:27 p.m. CST

    If Gilliam says it's unfilmable..

    by donkey_lasher

    then it is. This comes from the man who filmed Baron Munchausen. A fucking legend.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:29 p.m. CST

    It was filmed, therefore, filmable.

    by MrMysteryGuest

  • March 4, 2009, 1:29 p.m. CST

    and....

    by donkey_lasher

    ...there's no squid in this...why? Could it be that Snyder thought it was unfilmable?

  • March 4, 2009, 1:29 p.m. CST

    Expectation, meet Reality.

    by The Reluctant Austinite

    The first couple of Harry Potter films were also accused of being slaves to the material; so faithful to each and every detail that they lost the chance to work as film. The later films that started to take greater liberties with the material got more interesting. Look, this is an abitious undertaking. There's no way Snyder wasn't going to get a few bloody noses bringing this to the screen. I would much rather see a director with ambition attempt something difficult than a director who doesn't give a shit and decides to take a paycheck for something like "Night in the Museum 2." But that's just me. Maybe some of you would rather see "Paul Blart: Mall Cop." We should at least appreciate the effort if not the result. There was no way this film would ever live up to the hype, and maybe we won't know for sure how we feel until we see it a couple of times. Due to ridiculous mental hype on my part, I had to see "The Phantom Menace" 3 times before I was sure I hated it. This was also my story with "Conan the Destroyer." In the reverse, I had to see "They Live" 3 times before I realized it was amazing. I was totally wrong on first viewing.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:31 p.m. CST

    Maybe Moore said it was "unflammable"...

    by MrMysteryGuest

  • March 4, 2009, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Public Enemies trailer is now online

    by terry1978

    http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/publicenemies/large.html Oh, snap biatch.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:33 p.m. CST

    wrong

    by crankyoldguy

    Visual and thematically dense, I can't imagine a better adaptation (despite the changes in the climax and end wrap-up; Watchmen was always interesting, but hardly the holy grail of all comic's works -- not at all). The casting is dead-on. Ackerman was everything she was supposed to be - conflicted, lost and yes, sexy. True, the only character that wasn't fully nailed was Veidt. But this is a tremendous film, though the mass public may be expecting an Iron Man fun ride. Hell, the violence here, plus the sex makes this far more intense than the implied violence in 'The Dark Knight.' Some fanboys of various generations will never be satisfied. But the unfilmable stance is plain stupid, son (and I'll call you that rather than obese male or whatever).

  • March 4, 2009, 1:35 p.m. CST

    Also, to all TB parents - this is NOT for kids

    by crankyoldguy

    Between the graphic violence and the sex (well-handled but still...sex) this is not for kids in any shape or form. perhaps 15 or 16 and up. But 12 and under especially, no way.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:35 p.m. CST

    So its PERFECT but you don't like it?

    by knowthyself

    Your review basically praises the music as a masterpiece. But at the end you don't like it? WTF KIND OF REVIEW IS THAT?

  • March 4, 2009, 1:36 p.m. CST

    let's add that Moore's a nutjob by now...

    by crankyoldguy

    and you know what, all his 'great' work ain't so great, sorry.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:36 p.m. CST

    The Squid will have its vengence!

    by fiester

    Wait and see....

  • March 4, 2009, 1:36 p.m. CST

    no such thing as "bad acting" only bad directors

    by FleshMachine

    who yell "cut, great! print!". (coughgeorgelucascough)

  • March 4, 2009, 1:37 p.m. CST

    NAKED LUNCH was fucking unilmable

    by knowthyself

    And it was filmed. So fuck this whole "unfilmable" bullshit. Geeks need to get over themselves and Moores fancy picture book. Its just a comic book. Thats all it is. That's all it ever will be. Quoting bob dylan lyrics does not turn your comic book into fucking Hamlet.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:40 p.m. CST

    Comic book fans

    by CaseyMcCall

    Need to lighten up. TDK would have never done the business it did had it just been fans of the comic to have shown up. Movies are for everyone, they are not the sole possession of people who buy comic books, graphic novel or whatchamacallit. Take a deep breath and think about blue schlongs.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:41 p.m. CST

    Consequences, Smoncequences...

    by StatelyWayneManor

    Filmable, unfilmable...I finally got a Rorchach action figure! Thanks Snyder!

  • March 4, 2009, 1:44 p.m. CST

    Moore was always a nutjob

    by Jodet

    Or haven't you read 'V'?

  • March 4, 2009, 1:45 p.m. CST

    Watchman the Movie

    by Ebolarama

    Is unreviewable

  • March 4, 2009, 1:46 p.m. CST

    For The Love Of Whoever

    by Cerpin

    Please stop with all the whining. I saw the movie on Monday here in Austin (actually saw Harry in the crowd) and I thought it was a great adaptation. Remember when Peter Jackson was given shit for the changes he made in Lord Of The Rings - the unfilmable novels that in no way could be made into a movie that wasn't 87 hours? That seemed to work out fine for him. This is the same exact thing, so let's be happy that it got made and that it's actually good! I honestly can't take another "it was perfect until I got to the end and realized that it made sense and was no longer bizarre and random" comment. People need to be celebrating this thing.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:46 p.m. CST

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=_aioA_eIuXE

    by catlettuce4

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=_aioA_eIuXE cort webber's lapdog or his 'travis the chimp' if you will, fatboy roberts like you never seen him before

  • March 4, 2009, 1:48 p.m. CST

    Next up for Snyder...

    by Kid Z

    ...Infinite Jest: The Movie. Zack's gonna continue trying to film the unfilmable until he gets it right, dammit!

  • March 4, 2009, 1:48 p.m. CST

    Imagine going back in time....

    by whiskey_dick

    ...six decades or so and telling a group of directors from Hollywood's Golden Age that in the year 2009 a review of a serious movie would contain the sentence "They apparently had someone specifically working on the jiggle physics of his wang". I wonder if they'd ever make a movie again. (NOT attacking Watchmen, I haven't even seen it, just a thought that popped into my head).

  • March 4, 2009, 1:48 p.m. CST

    I love comics

    by Ebolarama

    But calling a comic a "graphic novel" makes about as much sense as calling The Fountainhead a "non-illustrated comic." I'm reading Watchman now, I like it... but it's drawings with a little bit of narrative or dialogue in each one. It's not a novel.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:49 p.m. CST

    LOTR was unfilmable as well.

    by knowthyself

    Until Peter Jackson fucking filmed it. And LOTR is ten times the book Watchmen is. More dense. More mythology. More UNFILMABLE than Watchmen and yet it was filmed. Are people so short sighted? A by the book 12 part mini series would be just as boring.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:50 p.m. CST

    Trainspotting

    by belasco_house

    was deemed by some as unfilmable. They adapted it & made a critically acclaimed movie.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:50 p.m. CST

    http://tinyurl.com/djvfe6

    by catlettuce4

    http://tinyurl.com/djvfe6 - in case talkback forces a space in the previous youtube url

  • March 4, 2009, 1:50 p.m. CST

    Snyders film is perfect and a dream come true. I hate it.

    by knowthyself

    BLAH BLAH BLAH

  • March 4, 2009, 1:50 p.m. CST

    End of Return of the King

    by StatelyWayneManor

    I could have really used a bathroom break. Thats all I got.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:51 p.m. CST

    Fatboy the Star Wars mod

    by 5 by 5

    I wonder if this is the same person...

  • March 4, 2009, 1:51 p.m. CST

    I know a guy

    by Ebolarama

    with a tattoo of a severed head i his belly button... it's a graphic navel

  • March 4, 2009, 1:52 p.m. CST

    Fight Club is unfilmable...

    by knowthyself

    ..too violent.No way would anyone...oh wait it was filmed.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:52 p.m. CST

    Alan Moore is right

    by detectivesoap

    Read this article for the difference between comics and movies if you're still confused. http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/10/15/is-watchmen-unfilmable/

  • March 4, 2009, 1:52 p.m. CST

    RE: knowthyself

    by Cerpin

    Agreed. At the end of the day Snyder made creative choices to make a Watchmen film watchable. They worked.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:53 p.m. CST

    I'd like to see someone film The Wind up Bird Chronicles.

    by knowthyself

    Not unfilmable.

  • March 4, 2009, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Superman Returns II?

    by JackPumpkinhead

    It sounds more and more as if this could be what I thought a few months ago - an adaptation of illustrations, not of the plot. Or maybe not, we'll see.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Way to be an ass with the spoilers.

    by ParagonComplex

    It could have a spoiler tag mentioning that Rorschach gets his mask back from the psychiatrist. Oh well, I guess Harry wanted to be a little bit Devil's Advocate by posting one of only probably... one non-glowing reviews of the movie.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:02 p.m. CST

    Avatar: So good it's unfilmable

    by Stuntcock Mike

    Bale

  • March 4, 2009, 2:02 p.m. CST

    What a bunch of assholes

    by FeckWeed

    all you people talking shit about Alan Moore fucking suck. What a sad generation- siding with big money film studios instead of a great artist.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:03 p.m. CST

    RE: JackPumpkinhead

    by Cerpin

    The plot's all there. Damn, most people only seem to be watching it to find stuff they don't like. Of course it's going to seem cold and heartless if you see it with that mindset!

  • March 4, 2009, 2:05 p.m. CST

    I've been fucking saying it....

    by name818

    Over hype this and it will turn to shit. This movie was a gamble to begin with and everyone still put it on a pedestal. It's probably a good movie, but all anyone is going to think when they go see it, is the disapointment. fuck eveyrone. and fuck the dark knight

  • March 4, 2009, 2:06 p.m. CST

    Everything is filmable...

    by Fortunesfool

    Making a good film is difficult.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:07 p.m. CST

    I don't understand people

    by MJDeViant

    If you want the book, then just read the book. I don't want some movie made for retards that can't read so they have a way to experience it. I want a movie. Personally, I feel like I can separate the two. The novel and then a movie BASED on the novel. If I wanted every single thing from the book I would read the book and be merry, which I occasionally do. This movie should, like most comic to movie properties, be based against other movies. Unless the creator of the comic is directing, casting, scoring, filming, etc. then it will never be the first vision in the first place. I'd rather have a decent interpretation then mimicry.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:07 p.m. CST

    So this reviewer

    by Outlaw

    likes his dongs CGI'd???

  • March 4, 2009, 2:07 p.m. CST

    HOW IS THE SEX IN THE MOVIE?

    by Banzai Rootskibango

    Is it really rough like in Monster's Ball? Or is it more like it was in 300? <P> I only ask because I may go watch it with my Pap Pap and it might be a little...awkward or weird...I can't deal with anything having to do with sex mixed in with my parents. Am I the only one who is like that?

  • March 4, 2009, 2:08 p.m. CST

    Thanks to the Watchmen Motion Comic

    by Dapper Swindler

    I no longer feel invested in the outcome of this film. You can't get more of a perfect adapatation than a motion comic, so I'm seeing the movie as just a live action experiment. By the way, the motion comic rocks.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:08 p.m. CST

    Thanks to the Watchmen Motion Comic

    by Dapper Swindler

    I no longer feel invested in the outcome of this film. You can't get more of a perfect adapatation than a motion comic, so I'm seeing the movie as just a live action experiment. By the way, the motion comic rocks.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:08 p.m. CST

    Decent adaptation, very close

    by most excellent ninja

    some of the parts in the film that were changed should not have been changed. As a whole he comes very close to making it filmmable. The whole Dr Manhattan origin sequence which follows the book almost exact is almost virtuoso in how it just becomes the forefront of the film for a few minutes.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:08 p.m. CST

    did they cgi his blue balls too

    by Groothewarrior

    its gotta look as bad as it hurts

  • March 4, 2009, 2:08 p.m. CST

    Sex and the City 2. Unfilmable.

    by Stuntcock Mike

  • March 4, 2009, 2:10 p.m. CST

    Banzai Rootskibango

    by most excellent ninja

    more explicit than 300, way more explicit.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:10 p.m. CST

    ...jesus f*ck*ng Christ people

    by VADER77

    here's an idea......just go SEE the fuckin' movie.... sometimes you just go see one and take it as it is.... STOP READING THE CRITIQUES...... go enjoy it, hate love despise it, just go see it!!!! Oh yeah, and tell me if any of you saw "mallcop" doing $130 million plus.?.... i didn;t think so...... and yeah, LOTR was "unfilmable"......i mean i'm as geek as the rest of you but, man for fucks sake, get over ourselves, ....

  • March 4, 2009, 2:11 p.m. CST

    knowthyself

    by most excellent ninja

    No, LOTR was "unfilmable" because of the scope and the size, but it's still a linear story that was just trimmed down. Watchmen isn't linear, it's all over the place, it's meant to show what other mediums can't do.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:11 p.m. CST

    Fear and Loathing was deemed unfilmable.

    by kikuchiyoboy

    I actually now commend Snyder taking this project and actually trying to make something spectacular. <br> <br> It's a pretty ballsy move to take on a project no one will be happy with. I'll wait and see. Alan Moore wrote an amazing comic and I just hope this honors it, but at the same time has a life all it's own.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:11 p.m. CST

    "unfilmable"

    by whiskey_dick

    For all the people saying "they made a movie out of it so therefore it is filmable", do you really think Alan Moore means 'you literally cannot present the words and images contained in Watchmen as a moving picture"? What he means is more like 'you can't make a GOOD movie out of it' or 'you can't convey the same meaning and message through a film' and I'm sure you're smart enough to know that. You might not agree with him, and I know it's fun to say he's cuh-razy but don't act like he lacks a fundamental understanding of how the world works. I haven't seen or read Watchmen so I'm an outsider in this and from what I've read the people who seem to be taking Snyder's side are saying things just as asinine as the people on Moore's side.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:14 p.m. CST

    Pettiness killed the Fanboy

    by RedBarron

    Impossible to film? How about…..impossible to satisfy. This is the greatest effort ever being put into a movie like this and the greatest effort to satisfy us and all I see is a lot of complaining. Maybe it’s deserved…maybe not but we must realize that after this, no one will care about making us happy. The negative comments and super critical observations will trickle down to the average viewer and ticket sales will suffer. I’m not saying we should praise a movie when it is not deserved but we are killing that which we love through pettiness. No movie will ever be good enough but this is about as good as it gets.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:14 p.m. CST

    detectivesoap, I was never confused

    by Professor Falcon

    And Moore is still incorrect.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:15 p.m. CST

    Make it into an HBO mini-series?

    by Itto Ogami loses Daigoro

    seems like it will fix this

  • March 4, 2009, 2:17 p.m. CST

    when he says "unfilmable"

    by bacci40

    that has nothing to do with the pretty pictures, and everything to do with the entire concept...which seems to be lost in the adaptation<p> ok, so zack got most of the deconstruction down, but that his just the surface...there is so much more to watchmen, which of course is lost in adaptation<p> what is it that you guys dont get about that?

  • March 4, 2009, 2:19 p.m. CST

    watchmen isn't linear...

    by knowthyself

    Its a linear story. With flashbacks and a pirate comic drawn into the pages. Yeah thats pretty linear to me. I mean it has a beginning, middle, and end and in between their are flashbacks. What part of that hasn't already been done by hundreds of other movies already? You act as if the movie begins with the journal and ends with comedian dying. But again movies have always told stories in reverse as well so what is so complicated about watchmen? Nothing thats what.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:20 p.m. CST

    Internet killed the movie adaption...

    by kikuchiyoboy

    Heh. <br> <br> What evs. We'll all no soon enough if it's a work of art or a Bob Ross painting.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:22 p.m. CST

    whiskey_dick

    by Professor Falcon

    <p>Yes, we know what Alan Moore meant when he used the word "unfilmable".</p> <p>But thanks for clarifying in case anyone here was actually stupid enough to think he meant "you literally cannot present the words and images contained in Watchmen as a moving picture".</p>

  • March 4, 2009, 2:22 p.m. CST

    Bacci40: We get it. We just don't accept it.

    by SpyGuy

    One person's "unfilmable" is another person's "appreciate the effort, but could have been better."

  • March 4, 2009, 2:23 p.m. CST

    SPOILER If you haven't read the novel.

    by kikuchiyoboy

    I just hope it ends with the ketchup kid. That fucking made the comic. No effing lie. There's so many layers in the book, but that really took it home. A kid stuffing his face with ketchup on the smile face... heh.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:23 p.m. CST

    FATBOY KEEPS PORTLAND WIERD

    by DOGSOUP

    Dammit man, I haven't SEEN the thing yet! Despite Portland being so fucking awesome as to have the very first full viewing of the movie before an audience, I didn't make that one. Thanks for the Keene Act Protest March though! In conclusion: FUCK BUSINESSWEEK.COM! FUCK THEM TO DEATH!

  • March 4, 2009, 2:23 p.m. CST

    You don't 'film' it, you 'adapt' it ...

    by ReportAbuse

    It's a translation from one medium to another just as with books to movies. "Unfilmable" misses the point. The question is, is the movie a successful effort to ADAPT or translate one medium into another? This question has been debated as long as there have been book adaptations to film. The reason there is no final answer is because with a reading experience EVERY READER will have an individual experience (more so with books than comics though.) That infinite variety of interpretation has to be funneled down into ONE concrete realization, and in the case of a movie it will be that of the director (and the screenwriter, but to a lesser extent.) There is no one right answer.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:24 p.m. CST

    a real review as opposed to Harry's retarded blitherings!

    by quantize

    of course it was going to suck a bit...300 was a guilty pleasure and mostly fucking stupid.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:24 p.m. CST

    i agree Redbarron

    by VADER77

    ... negative reviews are fine, alternate or praising, WHATEVER.... if we can't get past the petty bullshit, it's eventually gonna have an effect on future movies..... as Redbarron said, this will trickle down, and BEFORE the movie even opens, it's gonna have an effect, and not a good one for us fans,.....

  • March 4, 2009, 2:25 p.m. CST

    "The Sneeze" was deemed unfilmable!

    by kikuchiyoboy

    <br>

  • March 4, 2009, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Uh...

    by Cerpin

    Bob Ross paintings are unfilmable! So you take that shit back.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:26 p.m. CST

    For once I agree with Hitler

    by Autodidact

    I haven't met a whole lot of people who have actually READ Watchmen who think it needs to be made into a movie. The whole point of Watchmen is the comic book medium and the things it can do. It's not really even about the story at all.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:26 p.m. CST

    So what does Alan Moore think of the WATCHMEN motion comic?

    by SpyGuy

    It's the comic and it moves. Or is that not good enough either?

  • March 4, 2009, 2:26 p.m. CST

    Time to move on and look forward to Inception! Nolan is king!

    by fassbinder79

  • March 4, 2009, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Talkbacks are fun!

    by furzee

    God, I love all the naysayer, fanboys, and media elitists that get so worked up on the talkbacks here (and I count myself amongst them, believe me). Suffice it to say that while I have some familiarity with The Watchmen universe, I would not call myself an expert. I've heard a lot about the Watchmen graphic novel, and it's on my list of things I want to read. I know the general storyline, and the tone it sets, as well as the way the book ends and how the movie differs from it. And as a fan of good genre entertainment, all I can say is...I'm fine with that! I respect every fan of the book that reveres it for what it is, but as a genre fan I'm looking forward to a nice, dense, mature, meaty, beautiful to look at film and from all we've heard so far this film delivers. Let's face it, the film is already a fairly decent critical success (78% on Rotten Tomatoes this morning). There was a day when as fans of this form of media if someone had told us we were going to have the kind of year we had (Ironman, Dark Knight,The Incredible Hulk, Watchmen, Star Trek, etc etc) I would not have believed them. Let's everyone just take a moment to soak in the joy that finally our beloved genre of choice is finally getting a little respect. I for one will be sitting in the middle of the theatre on opening day with a bog ole thankful smile on my face.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:27 p.m. CST

    The Blue Weenie.

    by BurkeCarterJ

    How many children will be mistakenly brought to this, only to have the image of a giant glowing blue wang burned into their brains forever? Ah, memories..

  • March 4, 2009, 2:28 p.m. CST

    Well zom-bot...

    by WillardGreensThunderballs

    You haven't read many reviews then, have you?

  • March 4, 2009, 2:28 p.m. CST

    I want to see someone give Allan Moore a hug

    by drewlicious

    Just to see the expresion on his face.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:28 p.m. CST

    These "negative" reviews...

    by Wolfman Nards

    Don't really make sense to me. It seems like as a movie on it's own, it stands just fine. But the expectations of it being just as effective as the book are crazy. Sounds like a good movie and that Zack Snyder pulled it off better than anyone could have ever expected.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:28 p.m. CST

    I should take that back. Bob Ross is genius.

    by kikuchiyoboy

    <br>

  • March 4, 2009, 2:29 p.m. CST

    Where can I find this "novel"?

    by Ebolarama

    I bought the comic book online, and I like it a lot, but I keep hearing about this novel... where can I get a copy of the 300+ page literary piece that uses words, not drawings, to convey settings, scenery, physical appearances, action, etc?? Anyone know?

  • March 4, 2009, 2:29 p.m. CST

    5 by 5, re: Fatboy Star Wars LOL

    by BigNig

    yes it is the same fatboy from the top-level messageboards at starwars.com you can find him at his new boards at struttingrug.net which I gather is support group for epilyptics and aspergers

  • March 4, 2009, 2:30 p.m. CST

    This sounds to me like Snyder did it again.

    by DerLanghaarige

    Instead of trying to make a good MOVIE, just recreating the panels of the COMIC BOOK, without having any idea what the difference between the two mediums are.<br> I still think that 300 is the perfect example for this case. Dialogue that might be great and epic in a comic book suddenly sounds dull and annoying when an actor says it in a movie. Pictures that look breathtaking in a comic book, look silly when they are re-enacted in a movie (and annoy the shit of you when the director stops the movie every few seconds to yell into your face: "SEE!? this looks exactly like in the comic!!).<br> I also think that EVERYTHING is filmable. You just need the right people behind it. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Naked Lunch have been mentioned here. These movies work great, because they are variations of the books and don't follow every single page of them.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:31 p.m. CST

    I guess I will probably like it

    by Carpet_Pisser

    as I am one of the few geeks that hasn't read Watchmen, so I have no expectations whatsoever...except that I am gonna see balls that are bluer than mine were on my prom night...ZING!

  • March 4, 2009, 2:33 p.m. CST

    Carpet_Pisser

    by furzee

    Well played sir. I just choked on some water reading that. Sounds like we dated the same girl in HS

  • March 4, 2009, 2:34 p.m. CST

    And another thing...

    by Wolfman Nards

    No book adaptation is ever as good on film. EVER. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, any Stephen King novel, they never are as good as the book. Watchmen fans (myself included) have pretty high expectations but you have to know going in that it is impossible to be as good as the book. ESPECIALLY this book. This movie is going to be sick, every review has said this to me, be it bad or good. The negatives I've read all seem very nit-picky.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:40 p.m. CST

    Fatboy is a Radio Jockey out of Portland

    by DOGSOUP

    If he's a starwars.com guy it would;t surprise me as his show with his co-host Cort is one of the most geek-friendly radio shows I've ever heard. They play free movies at one of the coolest therter pubs in town (this month it's Rocky III), they held a parade for Watchmen, and in between all this witter geeky banter and games they play tool, Zepplin, Nine Inch Nails, and Rage Against the Machine- type programming. I fucking hate Disc Jockey's but the high levels of geekcentric weirdness of their show made me a fan.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:42 p.m. CST

    .. well put Wolfman nards...

    by VADER77

    pretty well NO film is as good as the book....... Stephen King (and anyone who's read his books) can definately tell you that.... but i like to see them done....... may hate 'em afterwards, (like Superman-Routh version).... but i've waited 30 years to see the "general public" embrace the genre and movies I hold dearest in the same regard, and i'd like to see it continue.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:44 p.m. CST

    I don't have a blue penis.......

    by Yoda's Ball Sack

    But I Get blue balls alot.........

  • March 4, 2009, 2:45 p.m. CST

    Great review. I saw it on sneak preview Monday

    by toadkillerdog

    I could not agree more with this review. It is a good movie for what it is, and geeks should see it to be convinced one way or the other, but I judge movies by whether or not I would pay to see it a second or third time, or for free, and I never want to sit through this movie again.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:46 p.m. CST

    A happy little cloud

    by RedBarron

  • March 4, 2009, 2:48 p.m. CST

    My pal saw in London and

    by drturing

    said that it sure looks great and the hard work shows, but everything else is off in tone.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:50 p.m. CST

    Vader77

    by Carpet_Pisser

    I would like to add Jurassic Park to that list...I went in expecting an entirely different movie. I am the only one of my friends that absolutely hated that movie.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:52 p.m. CST

    That was a really great review

    by drturing

    The first paragraph with its description of Moore, really funny shit. More like this please, Fatboy. And why the frak haven't you interviewed Hotdog (Bodie Olmos) on your show?

  • March 4, 2009, 2:55 p.m. CST

    how can anyone dislike this movie?

    by JaredParker3

    its different from any other super hero film because it doesn't celebrate superheroics it makes them mundane the heroes are just everyday losers like anyone else

  • March 4, 2009, 2:56 p.m. CST

    Do we really need any more reviews?

    by yomomma

    The picture is clear: if you masturbate to the graphic novel you will find threads to pull and things to hate about the movie. If you have an open mind, you will find many things to like. 'Nuff said. I'm just sick of reading paeans about the graphic novel, about how it changed lives and deeply affected the reader - FINE! But it is just a comic book, and this is just a comic book movie. No matter how profound, it has a giant blue glowing guy and people fighting in slo-mo spandex. Get a grip already!

  • March 4, 2009, 2:57 p.m. CST

    Actually, the film's main audience

    by daggor

    will be the 11-and 12-year olds that will watch this movie on DVD, on cable and via torrent. We're the only shmucks going to see this thing in theaters.

  • March 4, 2009, 2:59 p.m. CST

    wolfman nards

    by whiskey_dick

    I agree that movies based on books are almost never as good as the original book (though they can still be very good). The only exception I always think of when this subject is mentioned is Mystic River. The book isn't a complete waste of time but the movie is a vast improvement.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:01 p.m. CST

    VADER77...darabont nails king

    by bacci40

    he is the only director to do so

  • March 4, 2009, 3:01 p.m. CST

    Here's where it went astray

    by drturing

    They could've changed EVERYTHING about Watchmen, but they needed to keep intact the idea that it presents people who put on costumes to beat the shit out of people to be utterly psychologically real. The violence in it needs to be clumsy at times with awkward pauses. No one, in fact, should appear to be like a superhero at all except for Jon and Adrian. Instead we get Macaulay Culkin in Velvet Goldmine

  • March 4, 2009, 3:02 p.m. CST

    Alan Moore is a turd

    by JoeSixPack

    He has made some good comics, but the guy is a real douche.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:02 p.m. CST

    If you like the motion comic you're a fucking tool

    by drturing

    How fucking lazy are you, you can't turn a page and read a panel. I hate the motion comic far more than I'll ever hate an adaptation of the film. Seriously. A lazily animated piss poor after effects slaughter of everything the comic stands for. FUCKING READ IT YOU LAZY FUCKS.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:04 p.m. CST

    oh jeeze people, Gilliam is not god

    by wash

    He's not right about everything. He made Brother's Grimm for fuck's sake and he probably makes math errors now and again too. He's human, and the oft-quoted remark from him is second hand from Alan Moore, whom we all know is a bit biased.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:07 p.m. CST

    Big and Bloated

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Like most bad superhero films.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:09 p.m. CST

    The World needs Happy little clouds...

    by kikuchiyoboy

    heh. <br> <br> Bob Ross save THE INTERNETS!!!!!

  • March 4, 2009, 3:10 p.m. CST

    Whiskey_Dick

    by Wolfman Nards

    You're right... there are a few exceptions. I think the same could be said for American Psycho too but didn't they basically re-write it? I dunno - but i guess with more superhero, action, or fantasy pieces the fact is that nothing can compare to what we make in our own imaginations.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:11 p.m. CST

    P.S. Wofman Nards & Whiskey Dick = Sick band name!

    by Wolfman Nards

  • March 4, 2009, 3:13 p.m. CST

    DerLanghaarige

    by blindambition238

    I think 300 would be more of an inverse case compared to Watchmen. With 300, the source material was pretty sparse to begin with, so Snyder and the screenwriters tried to add extra meat to the bone by giving us the subplot with Queen Gorgo and underline the theme of sacrifice to give the film more substance. Of course then went to far so it was done with the subtlety and fun of being pounded with a slegehammer; it felt like excess bloat on what would otherwise have been a fun action movie. <p> Watchmen on the other hand seems to give Snyder the opposite challenge. The source material is so vast in scope and ideas that the task lies in reducing the source material in a way that it wouldn't overwhelm the format but still retain it's essential elements.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:14 p.m. CST

    Speaking of Terry Gilliam...

    by Mathom

    Will someone give his latest film a fucking distribution deal? Why is there not more of a vocal call for this on AICN!?

  • March 4, 2009, 3:14 p.m. CST

    American Psycho works as a movie

    by wash

    Just using that example, the book is it's own wonderful thing, and it misses a lot of the nice hallucinations and detail the book had, but the movie is still effective as a horror film and a commentary of the culture of the 80's.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:16 p.m. CST

    The Director's Cut Blu-Ray of this movie...

    by BiggusDickus

    ...is going to be the dog's cock. You know it, I know it.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:16 p.m. CST

    Mike Mignola has a better outlook on adaptation

    by danthemagnum

    Apparently, he encourages people adapting his works to change things. This way there is differentiation between the mediums, essentially giving reason to enjoy the different versions.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:19 p.m. CST

    Any changes snyder made

    by knowthyself

    would have brought down the fanboy hammer. So fuck anyone who says "he should've changed things" because they would have burned on him even MORE for making any changes. I mean good lord people never shut up about the god damn squid could you IMAGINE if he had changed anything else?

  • March 4, 2009, 3:20 p.m. CST

    DerLanghaarige

    by bacci40

    care to explain how 300 couldve been made into a better movie, without totally rewriting the comic and making it historically accurate? snyder did what he set out to do with that movie...see if you could throw a comic up on screen and make it move

  • March 4, 2009, 3:21 p.m. CST

    Neil as well

    by DOGSOUP

    Coraline started as a shot for shot retelling of the book until Neil came to Portland to tell them to mix it up a little...

  • March 4, 2009, 3:21 p.m. CST

    300 was good

    by lockesbrokenleg

    It was an enjoyable movie. I don't know why people here hate everything.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:22 p.m. CST

    Mathom

    by skimn

    Are you saying Heath Ledger's last filmed acting role in a Gilliam movie can't find backing? Thats hard to believe. But then Gilliam can be a hard sell.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:22 p.m. CST

    danthemagnum...mignola is easier to adapt

    by bacci40

    its fucking hellboy for christ sakes<p> and the look of the first movie was very much like the comic<p> the second one got more fanciful

  • March 4, 2009, 3:24 p.m. CST

    Watchmen is totally filmable

    by Dapper Swindler

    You just have to make it 12 hours. Should have been an HBO miniseries.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:24 p.m. CST

    I walked out as soon as I saw that blue cock

    by Lucifer Haywood

    Because that's GAY. Anyone who likes this is GAY. And likes blue cock.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:25 p.m. CST

    I meant to say 'was' an otherwise enjoyable action movie'

    by blindambition238

    I liked 300 too despite the boring Queen scenes.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:26 p.m. CST

    bacci40

    by danthemagnum

    It may be easier to adapt, but it's all about the attitude man. Every change he made was scrutinized by the public, because they idea was to put Watchmen the novel onto the screen. If they went into the project saying "Look people, things will change." then people would have been a little wearier about it, but they would have had an easier time crafting a story that fit the filmmakers and the medium. Instead they tried to go page for page, so once people got into that idea they expected exactly what is in the book on the screen. No room for adaptation at that point.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:26 p.m. CST

    I'm gonna make up my own mind tomorrow night

    by God's Brother

    but this is one fucking great review. I ain't never heard no-one talk about the CG Osterman yet, and it's been something I've been wondering about. Now it seems like it's something I should be worried about. Anyhow, well written review

  • March 4, 2009, 3:28 p.m. CST

    DOGSOUP...gaiman hasnt been fucked over

    by bacci40

    as much as moore

  • March 4, 2009, 3:29 p.m. CST

    bacci40 True..

    by DOGSOUP

    ..and I bet also he hasn't been fucked as much as Moore either...

  • March 4, 2009, 3:30 p.m. CST

    bacci40 RE: King

    by Professor Falcon

    Reiner did an outstanding job with both Stand By Me (The Body) and Misery.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:32 p.m. CST

    i didnt like misery

    by bacci40

    stand by me was very good, but misery missed the point<p> the book is about writers block, the movie was about fan obsession

  • March 4, 2009, 3:33 p.m. CST

    Lucifer Gaywood: Thanks for representing 14-year-olds on AICN

    by SpyGuy

    You can return to your Nintendo DS and listening to Tool now.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:33 p.m. CST

    Gilliam makes weird ass shit

    by lockesbrokenleg

    He has a small audience, though. so, they eat it up.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:34 p.m. CST

    ALSO:

    by God's Brother

    I'm as sick of people getting upset over fanboy bitching as I am about fanboy bitching itself. I think people get so worked up about nerds nit-picking inconsequential shit that they mistake any actual criticism of the MOVIE for fanboy bitching.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:35 p.m. CST

    DOGSOUP...does moore even fuck?

    by bacci40

    second marriage is to a lesbian...i dont think he is that much into sex

  • March 4, 2009, 3:37 p.m. CST

    Waaa the movie didn't look like it did in my head waaaaa

    by Bishop6

    u geeks get a phcukin picture perfect comic book movie and still not happy?? Maybe you deserve more like Superman Returns then.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:38 p.m. CST

    First of all, that video was funny.

    by Grievey

  • March 4, 2009, 3:38 p.m. CST

    One more day and I can finally say...

    by knowthyself

    .."your wrong Watchmen is a masterpiece."

  • March 4, 2009, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Your MOM is unfilmable, cock-jockey.

    by NinjaRap

    NASH OUT.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:41 p.m. CST

    And so were the Alan Moore cracks.

    by Grievey

    Second of all, I'm going to see it with my girlfriend, who has never read the comic book. Well, she TRIED to but then she needed new glasses and couldn't really see without them, so she put it off for later. Then she got NEW glasses three days ago and would've been able to read the book had I not stopped her from doing so. Because I want to see how she responds to the movie as someone who's never read the source material, as opposed to how I respond to the movie, having read and cherished it. I'm not close-minded about the end change, nor do I expect Malin Akerman to be any good. I choked down these losses and now am waiting to see if it works as its own movie. As if the graphic novel never existed. Because that is how many people will see this film. As their first Watchmen experience. So, I'm kinda just skirting through these reviews (both negative and glowing) waiting for the chance to form my own opinion after seeing it in IMAX this Friday.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:41 p.m. CST

    danthemagnum...even if its word for word

    by bacci40

    its an adaptation...film and comics are a different medium<p> if there had been massive changes, the movie wouldnt have been watchmen<p> look at the fucking hamm script, which is basically the jla with some problems and cursing<p> as for cgi doc, i still dont understand why they have probs with mouth movements, but according to zack, in initial tests, they tried to use actual faces with blue cgi effects and it came out looking like jumbi from peewees playhouse

  • March 4, 2009, 3:44 p.m. CST

    Superman Returns, couldve been brilliant

    by bacci40

    if they had played up the whole super stalker plot line even more...made him totally creepy...floating outside lois' window and jacking off...super sperm blowing up the entire building

  • March 4, 2009, 3:48 p.m. CST

    You lost me at "magnum opus"

    by ajbopp

    What frustrates the hell out of me is that this is not "the greatest comic book of all time" as it's so often hyped. It isn't even Moore's best work. In fact, it's a dreary, wordy, irrelevant piece of crap. To the extent it's unfilmable, it's only because the story itself is so devoid of life. In truth, I've no doubt it will make a better movie than it was a comic, because it will necessarily have to be edited, something sorely lacking from Moore's original work.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Facial Mocap is easy..

    by Bishop6

    http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/02/26/ted2009-how-benjamin-button-got-his-face/#more-21115

  • March 4, 2009, 3:52 p.m. CST

    Superman Returns in a film that

    by knowthyself

    Visually gets it right and gets everything so damn wrong. If Synger could get his eyes off of Rouths cock for ONE GOD DAMN MINUTE he would've noticed his film was devoid of good acting and the story was a rehash of the first film.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:54 p.m. CST

    bacci40

    by danthemagnum

    "if there had been massive changes, the movie wouldnt have been watchmen" This is the exact type of thing that I'm saying is the problem. It NEEDS to be different for it to work properly as a movie. I haven't seen it yet, but from what is said and what I've seen it seems that they didn't change enough.

  • March 4, 2009, 3:57 p.m. CST

    ajbopp...no other comic won a hugo

    by bacci40

    other than superman and batman, can you name another comic that has had a greater impact on pop culture?

  • March 4, 2009, 4 p.m. CST

    Alan Moore is actually not really a douche or a prick or...

    by Brians Life

    ...most of the other names you guys are calling him. <br><br>I swear there's gotta be a mathematical formula for determining the way the wind in gonna blow in these talkbacks.<br><br>Alan Moore, i do THINK, is sometimes more hung up on being anti-establishment than he really is.<br><br>He doesn't like the way his material has been treated in the studio system so he's very much against it. BIG DEAL!?!<br><br>I don't think it's necessary to side with Snyder over Moore or vice versa. Weak shit, man. Weak shit.

  • March 4, 2009, 4 p.m. CST

    Fatboy talks out of his ass every day on the radio

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Is he a legit critic?

  • March 4, 2009, 4 p.m. CST

    funny

    by gotilk

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsk7ZvgLpQM

  • March 4, 2009, 4:01 p.m. CST

    @bacci40

    by ajbopp

    On Pop Culture? Superman. Batman. Watchmen has had no effect at all on pop culture. Most of pop culture doesn't even know what it is. Or don't you know what pop culture is? Watchmen's effect has been cult, not culture.

  • March 4, 2009, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Watchmen is not pop culture.

    by knowthyself

    Pop culture is something people actually know about. Nobody knows who Rorschach is.

  • March 4, 2009, 4:03 p.m. CST

    I think Gilliam could have kicked ass with this

    by Mattyboy122

    He would have made the film a deconstruction of superhero films in the same way that the comic deconstructs comics. But we'll never know.

  • March 4, 2009, 4:04 p.m. CST

    I am from Portland and know this TURD

    by Foomas

    He is a Turd.....His show is Turdy...and his review is lame at best. Who gives a fuck what your smelly girlfriend thinks. That's right she smells and you know it. Have fun blowing your station manager doofus.

  • March 4, 2009, 4:04 p.m. CST

    please explain

    by frank cotton

    why showing dicks in movies is OK, but pussy, or for that matter, bush, is not?

  • March 4, 2009, 4:05 p.m. CST

    ajbopp...you are wrong

    by bacci40

    i suggest you go and speak to the creators of lost, brad bird and others in hollywood<p> watchmen remains the most influential comic book in the past 20 years<p> just because the work was not known outside of a small circle doesnt mean that it wasnt influential

  • March 4, 2009, 4:06 p.m. CST

    ...I cant tell if this review is negative or not.

    by Mike_D

    I need help.

  • March 4, 2009, 4:07 p.m. CST

    But why, Prof. Falcon?

    by detectivesoap

    I agree with people that say it is filmable, just not without getting rid of so many layers it's unbearable to me. I think the closest Moore is getting to being incorrect is not cashing in on this film if it's being made anyways. But did I hear that the group of superheroes in the film are actually called "The Watchmen"? If so, how lame is that? The whole point of the title is for us to consider who those Watchmen are (the gov, the superheroes, shit whoever "watches" something of value and makes decisions regarding it) and I think actually CALLING the heroes Watchmen is diverting the viewers attention from that. If that's not in the movie, however, everything I just wrote is useless and dumb. I'll see on Friday.

  • March 4, 2009, 4:08 p.m. CST

    ajbopp, of course 'greatest' is subjective but

    by blindambition238

    on the other hand, the Watchmen movie's marketing has been calling it the most "acclaimed' graphic novel of all time", which I think is a pretty valid statement since its slightly more quantifiable in terms of the awards it got and the consistently high standing amongst fans of the medium (basically like in a metacritic way).

  • March 4, 2009, 4:11 p.m. CST

    The Dark Knight Returns is more infuential than Watchmen

    by lockesbrokenleg

  • March 4, 2009, 4:13 p.m. CST

    It Was Great

    by sirbroiler

    Saw it Monday. No one could have done it better. So take it for what it's worth. It's a great adaption of a great story. The audience, well those who cared, seemed to enjoy it too. Blue dicks and all.

  • March 4, 2009, 4:16 p.m. CST

    lockesbrokenleg...miller would think so

    by bacci40

    but he, and you would be wrong<p> dkr is an enjoyable read...thats it<p> bats had already returned to his dark roots through guys like o'neil and adams<p> tdkr works as a satire, but it is filled with miller fetishes

  • March 4, 2009, 4:19 p.m. CST

    detectivesoap...its in the movie

    by bacci40

    and yes, that means the whole concept is dumbed down<p> of course, i read someone complain that dan is not called nite owl even one time<p> basically, today's movie audiences need to be spoon fed everything

  • March 4, 2009, 4:21 p.m. CST

    Sorry...

    by spooky2k

    I couldn't disagree more. Anymore breathing and this film would be slow beyond belief. Massa is right on the money, but people will be split between his and harry's opinions.

  • March 4, 2009, 4:22 p.m. CST

    frank cotton

    by Carpet_Pisser

    I don't know what movies you have been watching, but dicks in movies is a new phenomenon, while I personally have been watching bush in movies since Revenge of the Nerds

  • March 4, 2009, 4:29 p.m. CST

    Sorry spyguy, I seriously love the audacity...

    by Lucifer Haywood

    of blue cocks in cinema. Dicks in cinema, its all good!! :)

  • March 4, 2009, 4:42 p.m. CST

    ....Frank Cotton....

    by VADER77

    there have been lots of full frontal (female) in movies, and there are plenty of t&a all around, it's only fair that male frontal is in films too..... it's just there, don't worry about it..... and BTW, the more male frontal nudity is shown, far more female full frontal WILL be shown, so it's a win win......

  • March 4, 2009, 4:52 p.m. CST

    Pretty Good Isn't Good Enough...

    by symon

    I'll be in line with everyone else this weekend, but I completely reject this idea that if it gets most of Watchmen right then it is a success. This is one of the best works of the past century. Period. I don't care if the movie isn't 100% faithful to the graphic novel, but it better be 100% awesome. Because the book is brilliant. Fight Club was a brilliant book, and so was the film. I'm sure many people would have accepted a "pretty good" adaptation, and been thankfully to have it (I admit I'm half guilty of that myself with Choke), but with works of art on this level, if you can't make it brilliant you shouldn't bother trying to make it at all. What's the point? So people who can't be bothered to read the book can have a fun time at the movies? Adapt something by Mark Millar if that's all you're interested in...

  • March 4, 2009, 4:58 p.m. CST

    everyones aching about the blue balls

    by Groothewarrior

    whats everyone so sore about?

  • March 4, 2009, 5:02 p.m. CST

    Can't wait to see this on friday!

    by pokadoo

    Fuck your review!

  • March 4, 2009, 5:27 p.m. CST

    oh fuck off, i guess lotr is unfilmable too right? idiots.

    by Warcraft

    just because the movie isn't page for page, panel for panel, doesn't mean the book is unfilmable. bullshit. if the adaptation get's about 90 percent right, respects the source material and manages to pull off the emotions and philosophy of the source material, it's more than filmable. give me a fucking break, would LOTR have been a great movie franchise if it was word for word exactly like the books? Fuck no, they'd be three of the most boring fucking movies ever made. fuck alan moore, fuck this reviewer, and fuck any idiots that claim alan moore's books are unfilmable. fuck off.

  • March 4, 2009, 5:30 p.m. CST

    Hopefully, they'll remake this one in about 20 years

    by carlanga

    just wait

  • March 4, 2009, 5:31 p.m. CST

    I can see bacci40's point...

    by Blue_Demon

    Watchmen may not be known outside of geek circles, but it has influenced Hollywood (according to him) and Hollywood influences everything, so it has influenced pop culture, albeit invisibly.<p>After Friday? Who knows?<p>Hell, I'll be there.

  • March 4, 2009, 5:43 p.m. CST

    Oldboy

    by Noddy93

    "The action sequences are very well done. The Prison break reminded me of Oldboy"<br><br> I mad reference to just this in the talkback for that clip.

  • March 4, 2009, 5:47 p.m. CST

    THE AICN BACKLASH CONTINUES!!!

    by spud mcspud

    But since we die-hard squiddies seem to be the tin-foil hate-wearing conspiracy nuts of this site now, it's obligatory for any slightly negative reviews to IMMEDIATELY disassociate themselves from die-hard squiddism by stating that the new ending is fine, blah blah blah.<P> If TERRY FUCKING GILLIAM says it's unfilmable - the man who made BRAZIL, TIME BANDITS and BARON MUNCHAUSEN - take it to the bank. Yes, NAKED LUNCH got made - largely unsuccessfully, certainly from a financial perspective. Take the two big "unfilmable" novels that turned into successful movies - FIGHT CLUB and TRAINSPOTTING. Both kept fiercely to the spirit and intent of the source material, but both books were underground classics; the mainstream reading audience hadn't discovered them yet. The ending to FIGHT CLUB was different, but worked because the novel's ending would have been too quiet, too little of a catharsis after the mayhem of the previous two hours. TRAINSPOTTING was made from a very abstractly written novel anyway - it could have been interpreted in many different ways.<P> But WATCHMEN?<P> We're dealing with the ultimate example of what the graphic novel form is capable of. Time and again, for over two decades, critics have lauded WATCHMEN as being the greatest graphic novel ever written. Dave Gibbons' art is practically a storyboard in itself; Zack's job was 80% done. It was massively popular in pop culture, and still is.<P> THIS is why changing it doesn't work: it's not an abtract work that can be interpreted in many different ways (NAKED LUNCH, TRAINSPOTTING) and it wasn't an unknown novel with an ending that about 80% of its viewers would not have heard of (FIGHT CLUB) - it is already huge, it is already well known, and it is a meticulously constructed work designed not to be altered in any way. And this doesn't take into account the sheer chutzpah of the film-makers in thinking that they could write an ending that improves on the one the original writer - ALAN FUCKING MOORE - wrote!<P> Five years from now, this movie will be looked on like THE PHANTOM MENACE - all style and no substance, slavishly faithful to the designs, the look and the layout, but woefully lacking in substance, tone, intent or the meticulous design and first-second-to-last-shot interconnectedness that the graphic novel has. It'll be revealed to be a hollow, refelctive bauble, a technically flawless but artistically bereft and directorially shallow piece of work that fails the superior source material by swerving away from the true horror of the original ending for a more sanitised and philosophically downsized (and therefore less threatening) inferior movie ending.<P> 80% of WATCHMEN being right isn't good enough. If ever there was a project that needed to be 100% right or just not done at all, WATCHMEN is it.<P> Alan Moore was right. AGAIN.

  • March 4, 2009, 5:49 p.m. CST

    Gilliam makes some unwatchable crap

    by lockesbrokenleg

    He's still stuck in that Monty Python era.

  • March 4, 2009, 5:54 p.m. CST

    Same problem as the comic...I don't care about the characters.

    by Ash Talon

    Saw it last night. I'm not a fan of the comic. It's alright. I find the archetypes' frailties rather obvious. It may have been fresh at the time, but all the explorations seem right on the nose: all-powerful guy loses touch with humanity, gritty guy had a bad childhood, kid trying to live up to her parental expectations, techno-geek is impotent. And I don't care about them at all. But onto the film. <p> This is a film version of Watchmen. It's as close as you can get while remaining accurate and faithful to the test. Too faithful. Just like Sin City proved, you have to change things up a bit. It's a different medium and has to be treated as such. <p> The main plot of the story suffers due to one flashback after another. Manhattan's story is the best one. I felt he was the most compelling, despite being CG/motion capture. I found most of the actors to be merely playing characters but not becoming them. They aren't believeable. Neither is their world. Sure the production design is elaborate. However, everything feels a little phoney. Like sets that the actors don't feel comfortable in. It's all just...presented. Like the fake Nixon nose that ruins every scene it's in. <p> Right off the bat, I think it told me what kind of movie it was going to be. Comedian's death. Door explodes. Comedian realizes he's going to die. Comedian flies through window. That's all you need to see. In fact, it might make you curious about what happened and if anything was said. However, the film shows us a five minute (guessing on the length) fight scene, as the combatants trash the set. It was all just too much. This leads into an opening montage that is interesting and ends with the director credit being featured with an explosion. Is Snyder trying to same something with that visual? <p> The movie is downright boring though. It makes you question the source material, actually. I was extremely bored and almost fell asleep twice. There are action sequences inserted in (studio's request or Snyder can't resist himself?), but they're the same old slow-mo stuff we've seen. Stuff seems too rehearsed. Also way too brutal. There's almost fetishistic shots of bones protruding from wounds and exploded bodies covering bystanders. This gore just isn't needed. It's just pure shock value. My boredom doesn't come from lack of action, though. It comes from the whole thing being emotionally flat. <p> Another point of my contention. The music. I thought I heard snippets of Blade Runner and recent Batman cues in there. I'm not really into film scores, so my recognition of them seemed all the more shocking. The endless pop songs in it were overdone. One Top 40 hit through time after another. There must be a dozen songs featured in the film. Don't worry about buying those Time Life collections, you can get them all through the Watchmen Soundtrack. <p> I do find that the ending is better than the comic. The squid always sucked. It's jarring and out of place. Yes, comic books have alien invasions, so it's playing with that cliche. However, it's just too out of left field. The movie's use of nuclear catastrophe is far more appropriate it to the setting. The use of (SPOILERS) Manhattan as the villain the world needs is far more fitting to a story of superheroes in a "real" world. Doesn't an ending where humans have to turn on their super-powered god and fend for themselves seem like a better statement for the subject material? It is. Simply put, the movie ending is superior to the comic. <p> So this all sounds like bitching, right? Maybe. I do think the job does an adequate job of telling Watchmen. I just think the story needed to be more focused. Maybe told from one person's perspective instead of no one's? As it is, it's too scattered. And just flat emotionally. I didn't hate it, but I wouldn't say I liked it either. However, if you're a fan of the material, you'll find something to enjoy. It's just not a very fulfilling film.

  • March 4, 2009, 5:58 p.m. CST

    It's only unfilmable if you stick directly to the source materia

    by Ash Talon

    Watchmen is only unfilmable if you stick directly to the source material and its presentation. <P> If the story was paced differently and told from maybe one person's perspective, it would make a better film. For instance, why not tell it completely from Rorshach's view. Make it a noir. Have him gather the clues. We should be introduced to the other characters via his work. A superhero noir. This is just way too ensemble.

  • March 4, 2009, 6:02 p.m. CST

    "that bald dick who rapes hot asian robots"

    by Tin Snoman

    Hilarious! I'm so gonna miss BSG.

  • March 4, 2009, 6:06 p.m. CST

    how exactly has it influenced hollywood though...

    by Warcraft

    if it's just now getting a movie adaptation? I'm not buying the idea that it's had a major impact on pop culture. it just isn't tangible.

  • March 4, 2009, 6:10 p.m. CST

    It is unfilmable... if its by a guy who loves homoerotic n europ

    by drturing

  • March 4, 2009, 6:12 p.m. CST

    hey spud, have you even seen the film yet?

    by Warcraft

    also, can you teach me how to time travel 5 years into the future to predict how the world is going view unreleased films? thanks bud.

  • March 4, 2009, 6:16 p.m. CST

    That was HILARIOUS

    by kirttrik

    I never thought "Downfall" could make me laugh so hard. GREAT FIND. =lol.

  • March 4, 2009, 6:19 p.m. CST

    Watch some Alan Moore interviews...

    by Flim Springfield

    He's not a crotchety old grump, he's a smart, laid back guy with a good sense of humour about himself.

  • March 4, 2009, 6:19 p.m. CST

    Ebert's gushing about it.

    by drewlicious

    Four stars. I wonder if he ever read the book, though. Doesn't seem like he's all too familiar with it which is pretty encouraging.

  • March 4, 2009, 6:24 p.m. CST

    Ebert's review -- now you see it..

    by sapno_krei

    ...now you don't. Looks like someone jumped the gun in posting it on his web site. A lot of the negative early reviews come from critics who have read the book. I'm not saying this to pooh-pooh those critics, but rather to show that Snyder had a straddle a fine line between satisfying fans and making a coherent standalone movie. Having just read the book recently, I'm not certain how I'll react to the movie. But seeing how a critic I admire like Ebert responded certainly is encouraging. [I'll never forget that he gave 3-1/2 stars to THE PHANTOM MENACE, though.]

  • March 4, 2009, 6:40 p.m. CST

    UNNECESSARY

    by kungfuhustler84

    All of us are obviously gonna see it AICN! Get off your dumb lazy asses and find the shit we don't know about that's ALSO cool! Shit.

  • March 4, 2009, 6:44 p.m. CST

    Now...the dream is pissed on...

    by Raymar

    If you haven't already, go watch Hitler gets booted off X-Box LIVE. I cried with laughter.

  • March 4, 2009, 6:50 p.m. CST

    Good to see the haters get a thread to

    by micturatingbenjamin

    skulk about and piss in.<p>Moriarty liked it. Loved it. Wanted more of it.<p>Quint liked it. Loved it. Wanted more of it.<p>Moriarty and Quint are two guys whose opinions I have come to respect, and trust. If they say 'Yeah, it's good'...then, I give that some credence.<p>I don't know this guy, so...none of this next part is meant personally.<p>This douche starts out by flinging his wang around dictating what he is and isn't going to talk about, mitigating the fact that he's either a shithead with a need for attention, or a shithead with an axe to grind, or just an internet shithead with a radio show and a modicum of local popularity.<p>I'll state it again for the record: The day I rely on critics to suggest flicks for me, is the day I'll just go ahead and put my cock in a desk fan. Coincidentally, that will be the day I get to ice skate to my job at Satan's Rape Factory.

  • March 4, 2009, 6:57 p.m. CST

    TheManWithTheHat is glad to assert that...

    by TheManWithTheHat

    ...Fatboy is a raging douche. I live in Portland Oregon, and this monkey wouldn't remember his own name if his coworkers didn't shout it at him all day. DO NOT take anything this moron says seriously - none of us here in Oregon do!!

  • March 4, 2009, 7:02 p.m. CST

    it HAS been filmed. YOU ARE WRONG.

    by Bort Cuse

  • March 4, 2009, 7:05 p.m. CST

    Ebert's 4-Star (-->****<--) Review...

    by Lost_Horizon

    ...Is back up. And worth reading. No offense to Mr. Fatboy, of course. I'm sure his opinion carries an equal amount of... errr... weight.

  • March 4, 2009, 7:16 p.m. CST

    drturing

    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    uh, I think we have all READ the fucking comic. The motion comic is just another way to enjoy it. By your logic, we shouldn't see the film either because it would be lazy. Do us all a favor and go jerk off with your hand-towel made of discarded Moore beard hair, lube it up with your fat ass fanboy tears and right at the moment of climax, hang yourself. Paint yourself blue while your at it. Show us all what a REAL fan you are. <P> Moore went batshit insane at least 10-15 years ago. Whoever said he's been screwed over more than Gilliam is just kidding themselves. Gilliam is always being harassed and hurried and getting his budgets cut, limited releases and just plain bad luck if you ask me. Moore on the other hand thinks he's above hollywood and the comic industry and doesn't give a shit either way, and in my opinion is a ungrateful piece of shit. Yeah he can write some cool stuff but I'll be damned if he doesn't also think he's perfect. Sorry Moore, but you're not. Your books drag a lot and you're a pedophile.

  • March 4, 2009, 7:20 p.m. CST

    i'll reserve judgement fot the director's cut dvd

    by darthwaz1

    it's way longer and should be better. On another note, I still don't think Hellboy has been properly filmed yet..

  • March 4, 2009, 7:22 p.m. CST

    shogun gunslinger

    by drturing

    wow these alan moore sex fantasies you have are really complicated. and nothing you can ever say will change the fact that the motion comic is fucking LAZY, for segway riding, male vibrator using, illtiterate fucktards who think a hotpocket is food.

  • March 4, 2009, 7:23 p.m. CST

    Fuckin ass

    by batmarv

    use your heads folks..obviously anything is "filmable",,i could go take a shit, stick little wings in its head, film it throwing a shield and call it the Captain America movie. What people mean by "Unfilmable" is that it would be impossible to do the source material justice on film. But they said the same about LOTR and look how those movies turned out. Im pretty sure i will like Watchmen, because although im a fan of the comic, im not a pedantic, fanatical cunt of the movie!

  • March 4, 2009, 7:27 p.m. CST

    Alan Moore is Married to a Lesbian

    by DOGSOUP

    They BOTH are getting slices of pie on the side. And C&F are the only good radio in Portland. What TheManWithTheHat are you going to listen to 97.1 Charlie FM? They play Everything? No sir no they don't. And even you have to admit despite this review they still held a parade to celebrate this movie and that was pretty fucking cool. Remember when they did something similar when they played The Big Labowski at the Baghdad and let everyone dressed like The Dude in for free? C'mon don't support businessweek.com with epic cynicism! You don't have to listen to him just admit it's a rarity for a radio show on a rock/metal format to focus so much on geek culture...

  • March 4, 2009, 7:30 p.m. CST

    Hitler is right.

    by rbatty024

    Zack Snyder is a prick.

  • March 4, 2009, 7:38 p.m. CST

    drturing

    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    Hahaha, yeah because I'm projecting my "Alan Moore sex fantasies onto you". Wow Freud, way to throw it back at me. Hardly the case. I know it was subtle, but I was implying that you're a pretentious cocksucker of gigantic proportions and you think that following the opinions of people you admire puts you on the same level as them. I doubt even Moore would have a problem with fans watching the motion comic, especially if they've been reading his fucking book for 2 decades. What is so hard to understand about fans viewing it as a different way of experiencing something they really like? Why is that "lazy"? Like I said, stay at home and read the comic again and again and again. The rest of us will enjoy the film and think for ourselves. You Moore slaves have already had your minds made up for you. <P> Btw, as far as food goes, I'm a chef and what do you think I pop in the microwave when I get home on the occasion I'm so sick of cooking I want to puke? a fucking Hot-Pocket, motherfucker! That's right! Go read "Lost Girls" with a glass of Merlot, a fine Foi Gras and enjoy yourself you miserable pretentious prick. Oh and while your doing that, invite some friends over, let them take a gander at that book and then see if they ever call you again.. you do have FRIENDS, right?

  • March 4, 2009, 7:42 p.m. CST

    Back in the day they'd say Transformers was unfilmable

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Michael Bey is a GENIUS!!

  • March 4, 2009, 7:53 p.m. CST

    Concerning "unfilmable"

    by Logan_1973

    Years ago films such as LOTR, Iron Man, and Transformers were considered unfilmable. With the right script in the right hands, anything is possible. ...I'm going into this fresh. Never read the books; show me a good movie.

  • March 4, 2009, 8:09 p.m. CST

    who the fuck thought iron man and transformers were unfilmable?

    by bacci40

    all that needed to happen was for tech to catch up to film<p> transformers is a fucking half hour toy commercial, expanded into a 90 minute toy commercial<p> iron man is the perfect comic book movie...you dont have to think, it doesnt challenge at all, just kick back and watch robert downey dress up and blow away the bad guys<p> watchmen is a multi-layered tale, and as such, some of it will be lost in translation<p> but it couldve been worse, they couldve made the sam hamm version...OH SHIT...ITS THE GODDAMNED WATCHMEN

  • March 4, 2009, 8:12 p.m. CST

    Unfilmable

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    Everyone is on the money, unfilmable is elitist crap. <p> Making a great film with all the expectations, history, issues and the creator of that piece of fiction being a complete wanker, thats a different issue.

  • March 4, 2009, 8:17 p.m. CST

    Hey Fucktards

    by dilbynuggets

    I saw the movie, uh,,, it was infuckingcredible... a lot of pansy ass white bread dumb shit eating fucks who think they have the brain cells to be a CRITIC are shitting on this work of genuis because they can't get anyone of the oppisite sex to kiss them, much less play with their dick. Well just let mommy cook you up some weiners and beans, and sit in your basement jacking off to your computer as it plays the porn with girls you will never even talk to... 'cuz Watchmen owns your ass, it will make more money than Dark Knight, which I loved. The scenes were amazing, the philosophy was intact, the gore was legendary, the actors were the characters, and Silk Specter's tits.... woooooo.... listen fucktards, go home, no one respects or wants to hear your asnine bullshit... and go and see Watchmen, you will be ecstatic that you did...

  • March 4, 2009, 8:18 p.m. CST

    "Unfilmable"

    by BigFatBaby

    Maybe "Watchmen" would have been better off with a "Kill Bill" multiple volume story with the anime integrated directly into the main story as it was intended.

  • March 4, 2009, 8:24 p.m. CST

    Douche Review #57

    by Heckles

    Ever notice the more popular the source material, the lengthier and more horses ass the review is? It's a fucking comic book. Shut the fuck up.

  • March 4, 2009, 8:26 p.m. CST

    Read WATCHMEN not too long ago...

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    and, well, it was a little heavy-handed. I don't see what all the fuss is about, really. It's good, don't get me wrong. I really enjoyed it, but half of what made it so was the medium which delivered the message. I'm not so sure it would read as well if it were in novel form. The brilliant graphics combined with the metafictional layer of reading a comic make it the reading experience it is. So, if the film can capture the spirit of what I see as a bit of an obvious satirical, albeit dark, fiction which turns superhero archetypes on their ear, then I'm sure it'll be a good couple of hours and change.

  • March 4, 2009, 8:27 p.m. CST

    UNSQUIDABLE.

    by alice 13

    squidless in seattle.

  • March 4, 2009, 8:29 p.m. CST

    And this 'unfilmable' bullshit

    by Heckles

    Hey, snarky pretentious fanboy asswipes, it's coming to theaters on Friday. It was filmed. Get down from your hacky perch.

  • March 4, 2009, 8:35 p.m. CST

    my list

    by dilbynuggets

    Ok here's the long promised list of stupid cunts who should be shot and pissed on...1)Scott Von Doviak, a notorious mooma's boy who likes to stick his finger up his butt and then sniff and lick it, 2)Nigel Andrews, a closet masterbater, and pigfucker. Say what you want, but you shouldn't have intercourse with hogs, 3)Jurgen Fauth, some rat nazi fuck, who doesn't like his own reflection in the mirror, much less his mother, who gave birth to the shit heel, 4)Claudia Puig, just remove the U from her last name... end of story, 5)KUFO's FatBoy, a ass licker of the first order, many have questioned if he is even human, or just thinly disguised, moldy excrement from the diseased ass of a colon-cancer ridden eighty year old street bum... who knows?

  • March 4, 2009, 8:46 p.m. CST

    Astonishingly mixed reviews

    by BurnHollywood

    Over at Rotten Tomatoes, the movie is (at this point) scoring a "Fresh" from the regular body of critics, but a "Rotten" from the Top Critics.<p> Ebert and Travers (my baselines) like it, though, so I'm looking at the strong possibility that this thing soared over the general population's head, who were all expecting TDK or Iron Man.<p> A new cult hit. Sounds good to me.

  • March 4, 2009, 8:47 p.m. CST

    shogun gunslinger

    by drturing

    dude, reheating food at applebee's does not make one a chef. i think i will have a merlot with some spatchcooked quail tonight. and yeah, you're fucking lazy. unlike moore i reserve the opinion that watching a film adaptation is not lazy. watching an abomination that recycles the artwork while utterly destroying the effect intended by reading the text and looking at the panels, that's fucking lazy. but it's ok, douchebag, people like you outnumber me twenty to one, so yeah you probably will be happy with your friend the fleshlight tonight when you find you're too lazy to jerk off.

  • March 4, 2009, 8:48 p.m. CST

    Jesus H.Christ...

    by KosherWookie

    I am SO sick of the Underoos crowd pissing in everybody else's Wheaties. You know them: The jerkoffs who keep insisting that the proper term is 'Graphic Novel' because they refuse to own the fact that they love COMIC BOOKS; The ones who buy the $45.00 designer superhereo T-Shrts because they are apparently more socially acceptable than the fun & inexpensive ones (even though, in their heart of hearts, they miss their Underoos and wish they came out in grown-up sizes). Unable to admit who or what they are, and getting their onle small comfort from pissing on everybody else's good time.

  • March 4, 2009, 8:49 p.m. CST

    IVE NEVER READ THE BOOK

    by VALENTINEproductions

    I am looking foward to seeing this film for what it is. I honestly could care less what the comic book is. Im sure its great but im way too lazy to read it all when i can have it played right in front of me. Ive also downloaded the motion novel.

  • March 4, 2009, 8:56 p.m. CST

    The Cons...

    by micturatingbenjamin

    I will say that the cons of the novel are much the same for the movie.<p>The fact is, I love the Watchmen novel as a prime example of a piece of fiction embodying its milieu. Like House of Leaves, it uses comic conventions to tell the story as much as the actual narrative.<p>I mean, the Rockefeller Science Lab, where Manhattan lives has a Superman logo in its logo. But, that, like a lot of the expectations of the book are based upon people who already read comics. Which is why lots of the things in the comic are genius...if you already know the conventions.<p>The film, I'd say, pays attention to the comic's attention to convention and mirrors that, and becomes incongruous when put to film. Shit, I'm just wanting to see the fucking scene where Rorschach tosses pig fat on some poor asshole. It's gonna be good for me. Just to hear 'I'm not locked in here with you...you all are locked in here with ME.' on the big ass speakers, and see the Bad News Bear fuck shit up royal.<p>Seeing as how people pre-hating on this flick also seem to be in that group that hated the shit out of 300, I have a word of suggestion: Don't go see it. Or, do, and give them your money. But unless we've seen it, we can only speculate on its true worth as entertainment. I think it will be worth my ten bucks. The real irony is, even if you don't think it's worth your money after you see it, it doesn't matter.<p>I think guys who see movies to review them ought to pay to go see them. You don't pay for something, you don't appreciate it.

  • March 4, 2009, 9:18 p.m. CST

    Too late to listen to me now...

    by UltimaRex

    "Shot for panel, word for word." I said it all the way back in the day and that is how it should have been done. Now it is too late...

  • March 4, 2009, 9:25 p.m. CST

    NAKED LUNCH was "Unfilmable"

    by BurnHollywood

    Cronenberg/Burroughs muddled through the hindrances and came up with the most weirdly entertaining, twisted "biopic" ever.<p> I'm seeing a lot of critics cling to Moore's condemnation like it truly matters...shit, the guy hates ALL film adaptations, probably 99% of all movies, too. I think he's Harlan Ellison's fraternal twin, separated by a freak temporal accident.

  • March 4, 2009, 9:29 p.m. CST

    Ebert Gave it Four Stars !

    by Lashlarue

    <p> :)

  • March 4, 2009, 9:35 p.m. CST

    Stanley Kubrick's quote:

    by Chuck_Chuckwalla

    "If it can be thought, felt or imagined, it can be filmed." You're no Stanley Kubrick.

  • March 4, 2009, 9:54 p.m. CST

    Burn Hollywood agree with you

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    Ebert and Travers are two of the best, think expectations will play into the review of this big time. <p> Think Watchmen will have a big second week drop off, but will do well as a cult film and especially in DVD sales for years to come. <p> This decade's Fight Club perhaps. <p>

  • March 4, 2009, 9:56 p.m. CST

    Being in Japan - Have to wait till the 28th to see this

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    Damn studios and non-Worldwide release!!!

  • March 4, 2009, 9:58 p.m. CST

    I'm truly surprised, there is honest disappointment about this m

    by AlwaysThere

    I'd never think people would be able to bring themselves to tell the truth straight up like this.

  • March 4, 2009, 10:19 p.m. CST

    Pity the poor critics, Musashi...

    by BurnHollywood

    They walk out of TDK into THIS, where the psychotic villain is the hero, the hooded crimebuster is impotent, his girlfriend can actually defend herself, Two-Face is David Bowie (circa 1978), and Dr. Manhattan's huge blue dork hangs over everything...<p> FIGHT CLUB rules.

  • March 4, 2009, 10:20 p.m. CST

    drturing...again

    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    yeah man, I work at Applebee's. You nailed it. I reheat food. Yup, that's what I do. All day, every day. Guess that's why I've sold 2 menus and run a kitchen. Microwave instructions are this generations Le Cordon Bleu handbooks. God get a life and go back to pumping gas. BTW, KFC and Mad Dog 20/20 are a bit far off from quail and merlot. <P> I could say that reading a comic book (or as fuckwits like you, who like to hide behind the ridiculous term "graphic novel") is a lazier form of reading and destroys the intent behind reading an honest to god novel and picturing EVERYTHING in your head. So the fuck WHAT if people enjoy the motion comics. As far as I see it, I couldn't give even half a shit less if people watched that first or not. I don't care. Your attitude is doing nothing but depriving you of a few hours of entertainment and by the way you write, I feel sorry for you and hope you can find a tiny sliver of joy in your pathetic lonely, angry life. Your Moore worship is fucking pathetic and I hope to god you meet him someday just for the ripple of karmatic righteousness that will be sent out at the precise moment he signs your COMIC BOOK, takes your $20 and tells you to fuck off because you're nothing more than a worthless fanboy fuck who wishes more than anything to actually be Rorschach just to justify all the anger and isolation you deliberately put yourself through in order to get a tingle of superiority. So enjoy that "Merlot". I'm sure it's a nice vintage year...

  • March 4, 2009, 10:20 p.m. CST

    Changes Didn't Hurt LOTR Trilogy now did it?

    by Zardozap2005

    I remember, "Whaa! No Tom Bombadil! It'll be terrible! Whaa! They cut this! They cut that! They changed that!" "Why didn't they include the takeover of the Shire?!!" Whaaa! Goddamn fucking mouth-breathing morons with an opinion can't figure out some things NEED to be changed, otherwise you'll be watching a four and a half hour movie! I suppose no one would have bitched as much if they had made the movie in two parts now would they? Wrong! If this movie bugs you so much, stay home, worship Alan Moore and STFU and wait for the Deluxe Extended-The-Fuck-Out-For-Mouth-Breathing-Geeks Edition, just so they can bitch about the lack of a psychic interdimensional Squid.

  • March 4, 2009, 10:20 p.m. CST

    Miyamoto_Musashi

    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    Dude, I was in Japan when TDK was released in the US. I feel your pain :(

  • March 4, 2009, 10:32 p.m. CST

    I disagree! I loved it!

    by Molly_Millionz

    I just got back from a sneak preview and I completely disagree. The movie was amazing and worked on so many levels. I wasn't flawless but it completely captured and awed me. I've read the graphic novel twice, so I don't know every detail off by heart but I know enough to say that the changes they made worked and even enhanced the story in some respects beyond the graphic novel. Personally, one part of movie made me think "that's how Alan Moore should have written that part"

  • March 4, 2009, 10:38 p.m. CST

    Yeah Shogun

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    Its one of the cons, of living in this country. <p> The hot Japanese girls, makes up for it though. <p> But if studios want to reduce piracy in the world delayed releases are helping their cause.

  • March 4, 2009, 10:39 p.m. CST

    Burn

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    I also love Fight Club. <p> Great book and great adaption.

  • March 4, 2009, 10:48 p.m. CST

    The casting of Ozy

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    For those who have seen Watchmen, can you give your comments on Mathew Goode as Ozy. <p> And could you them imagine, someone like Brad Pitt in the role, and do you think a more well known actor would have made a difference? <p> I think from a Box Office perspective they are missing one big name. Until I see the movie I can't really comment myself on whether a star was needed. <p> Alec Guiness in the first Star Wars movie was a big help to that movie, some credibility for the mainstream.

  • March 4, 2009, 10:55 p.m. CST

    filmed therefore filmable?

    by berserkrl

    Those who make this argument seem not to know what the word "unfilmable" means.

  • March 4, 2009, 10:56 p.m. CST

    casting of ozy

    by Molly_Millionz

    I think Matthew Goode was fine as Ozymandias. Not amazing but he worked. I originally saw clips of a few of his scenes and totally dismissed him outright but once I saw him in context, it made more sense. I'd say he wasn't distractingly bad but wasn't distractingly good either. Needs to work on ee-nun-cee-ay-ting his syllables though.

  • March 4, 2009, 10:58 p.m. CST

    Doc Manhattan's blue peepee

    by Deus X Meshuga

    I'll never be able to look at a blue flavor ice pop the same way again...damn you Snyder!!

  • March 4, 2009, 11:01 p.m. CST

    hogun cumslinger

    by drturing

    actually bitch, you're the kind of person who makes food when i want it. the kind of lazy, halfwitted, dimbulb replicant of thought that is spending his outrage upon a version of a book that reads itself for you and has some fucked up fixation upon the author of said work, despite somehow enjoying it. in case you didn't notice you fucking barely functionally literate hydrocephalic baboon, Alan Moore wrote Watchmen. And you, you fucking watched the "motion comic". Pat yourself on the back and make me a steak, bitch.

  • March 4, 2009, 11:02 p.m. CST

    i have never understood the unfilmable tag applied to this

    by slappy jones

    i think people go a bit overboard with how deep watchmen is. all this unfilmable stuff is nonsense...i think its a bit over played the whole "watchmen is too layered and deep to ever be a film" at its heart it is juts a fairly easy to solve whodunnit.

  • March 4, 2009, 11:02 p.m. CST

    i have never understood the unfilmable tag applied to this

    by slappy jones

    i think people go a bit overboard with how deep watchmen is. all this unfilmable stuff is nonsense...i think its a bit over played the whole "watchmen is too layered and deep to ever be a film" at its heart it is juts a fairly easy to solve whodunnit.

  • March 4, 2009, 11:21 p.m. CST

    Even THE DARK TOWER isn't "Unfilmable"

    by BurnHollywood

    I'm working on a 90-minute version of the entire Stephen King book series.<p> It's amazing how quickly you can move a plot along with montages and repetitions of the phrase "Let's get out of here!"

  • March 4, 2009, 11:42 p.m. CST

    Miyamoto_Musashi

    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    haha yeah I was just backpacking through the country at the time so I wasn't used to that. I don;t know how anyone gets work done over there, man. There are more drop dead gorgeous women walking around that country than anywhere else I've been. Have fun over there!

  • March 4, 2009, 11:46 p.m. CST

    Will there be a novelization of the film?

    by ReportAbuse

    Now that would be something to bitch about. Is a graphic novel turned into a movie "novelizable?"

  • March 4, 2009, 11:48 p.m. CST

    drturing again and again

    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    You couldn't afford nor appreciate the food I make you cum-dumpster. Yeah I watched the motion comics like I said.. are you ready?... here it comes... AFTER I READ THE COMICS NUMEROUS TIMES FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS!!!! Get that through your thick ass meth-mother-dropped skull. <P> So go suck some crumbs out of Moore's beard. Maybe he'll even let you tongue some merlot stains off it. Don't forget to tell him what a big fan you are. He'll totally want to hang out with you.. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! <p> FUCK YOU!

  • March 5, 2009, 12:06 a.m. CST

    You know what's unfilmable?

    by Bumpasses Dawg

    9 1/2 Weeks with Rosie O'Donnell and Mickey Roarke TODAY.

  • March 5, 2009, 12:27 a.m. CST

    shogun gunslinger

    by drturing

    this steak you cooked, i asked for it medium rare. no tip for your server.

  • March 5, 2009, 12:28 a.m. CST

    ReportAbuse - Just hope there is at least one copy made and sent

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

  • March 5, 2009, 12:32 a.m. CST

    Saw it yesterday and it was great!

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    Actually, it was a whole lot better than THE DARK KNIGHT, imho.

  • March 5, 2009, 12:35 a.m. CST

    drturing

    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    That's it? You must be tired. I get sleepy when I read a lot too. Good luck with War and Peace.

  • March 5, 2009, 12:35 a.m. CST

    Fuck this Review

    by AgentCross

    The best part was the video of Hitler finding out about Hitler... now that was Genius.

  • March 5, 2009, 12:36 a.m. CST

    Err

    by AgentCross

    Err... the best part was the video of Hitler finding out about the new ending..... nothing to see here...move along.

  • March 5, 2009, 1:06 a.m. CST

    Agreed. This "review" sucked.

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    And, well, I'm no biologist.......but I smell ANTI-plant!

  • March 5, 2009, 1:15 a.m. CST

    Kusanagi-san out of 5 ?

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    Was going to say "how fucked were your eyeballs", might be a better rating scale.

  • March 5, 2009, 1:37 a.m. CST

    So much hyperbole

    by Harold The Great

    I have the Watchmen trade right here on my computer desk, I read snippets from it pretty often, and have been for years. I like the hell out of it. But this fucking "best piece of literature in the 20th century" bullshit has to stop. It's a comic book. It's something grown men are supposed to hide. Just because there's more thought put into it than most superhero comics, doesn't make it Dostojevski. Now his works ARE unfilmable.

  • March 5, 2009, 1:54 a.m. CST

    HATE FANBOYS

    by pauduro

    they hate all thats not like the "original" nad they get pist of if they change the blue pens for black pens cos its not like the original well you can go to hell you go and do a movie you spend 5+ months shooting and editing and planing if you think how it REALY had to be done ......... WHAAAAATTTTT YOU CANTTTTTT then SHOOT THE HEEEEEELLLLLL UP

  • March 5, 2009, 2:06 a.m. CST

    For the Aussies - David and Margaret's review

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    Looks good, saw Margaret (Margaret Pomeranz for the Americans) give it four and half out of five and David (David Stratton) 4 out of five, both very impressed. <p> Both heaped praise on it, Margaret preferred it over Dark Knight, they both liked the maturity of it. <p> Feeling a bit more confident, there is consensus from the reviewers I ussually read, i.e. these two, Ebert and Travers. <p>

  • March 5, 2009, 2:08 a.m. CST

    Curt and Fatboys radio show is Unlistenable

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Howard Stern called. He wants his show back.

  • March 5, 2009, 2:38 a.m. CST

    jesus christ, the zach snyder dick suckers are coming out the wo

    by whothefuckcares

    I have never seen so many defenders and ass kissers in my life. Fuck this movie. It ain't even worth downloading when the screener comes out.

  • March 5, 2009, 2:47 a.m. CST

    Watchmen > Dark Knight

    by Oomlot

    I haven't read the comic, but I don't read batman comics either. It's just a deeper and move interesting movie.

  • March 5, 2009, 2:55 a.m. CST

    That was...

    by mighty boosh

    ...a really considered, well-written review. More of this please.

  • March 5, 2009, 2:56 a.m. CST

    Miyamoto_Musashi, here's my rating:

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    Definitely 5 / 5 ! <p>I totally agree with the above poster who said Watchmen > Dark Knight. It may not be as accessible, but it's definitely more intelligent, more violent, and simply more stunning.

  • March 5, 2009, 3:01 a.m. CST

    Miyamoto_Musashi

    by most excellent ninja

    That was the fucking 70's dude, name actors don't work anymore, if it were true, Assassination of Jesse James with Brad Pitt would of made more than a paltry 4 million even if it's one of the best films ever made. Brad Pitt shoudl of been Ozy because he had the look, has the acting skill, the gravitas of personality and the build. But also the metetextual idea of the world's smartest megalomanic being played by one of the most recognizable dudes in the world. Goode was just wrong, creepy from the outset. in the book even when they tell you it's Ozy, you still think it can't be and that maybe they got something wrong and it was all misleading. This one. Nope. Goode probably didn't even read the comic.

  • March 5, 2009, 3:02 a.m. CST

    Motoko Kusanagi - more intelligent isn't a fair thing to say

    by most excellent ninja

    people saying it's smart or whatever, that's stupid, anything that in it's source is smart will obviously be smart on film. The movie isn't smart, the book is smart. And Dark Knight is a better 'film'.

  • March 5, 2009, 3:06 a.m. CST

    but does it work independently

    by goingsomewhere8

    If you hadn't read the graphic novel, would it be a good movie?

  • March 5, 2009, 3:10 a.m. CST

    No, most excellent ninja...

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    The Dark Knight is simply the more accessible of those two films.<p>But Watchmen is, well, the more intelligent one. More layers, more subtext. Dunno how to explain it better (at least in English :-))

  • March 5, 2009, 3:29 a.m. CST

    ebert review

    by Harold The Great

    sounds good. http://tinyurl.com/aeh3vn

  • March 5, 2009, 3:30 a.m. CST

    thanks most excellent ninja but ....

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    my point is on credibility etc, a film that based on material in what the mainstream would perceive as geeky and is reasonably unknown. <p> Agree that the Assaination of Jesse James was a great movie, but was released in limited distribution, with relatively little fanfare, was a long movie, a period piece and was up against it. <p> Appreciate your comments on Goode

  • March 5, 2009, 3:34 a.m. CST

    motoko thanks for your review

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    looking forward to seeing it when it finally hits screens in Japan, think it will do well here. Japanese seem to have a good appreciation of things that are a little different.

  • March 5, 2009, 3:45 a.m. CST

    Most excellent ninja further to my previous point

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    The casting of Robert Downey Jnr in Iron Man is the main reason for the financial success and mainstream accessbilty to a movie about a second string comic book character.Of course you still need a well directed and written movie, i.e. not The Spirit

  • March 5, 2009, 3:48 a.m. CST

    KosherWookie

    by spud mcspud

    They're called graphic novels because they're closer in length to a novel, and they're full of graphics. Comics tend to be 28-30 pages long; WATCHMEN is a bit longer than that.<P> It's not rocket science, Kashyyykkian...

  • March 5, 2009, 3:53 a.m. CST

    Love this PURIST=FANBOY bollocks...

    by spud mcspud

    So, by that rationale, if we purist fans of the GN are just being nitpicky about the Zack Slo-moders of the world fucking up our beloved properties, then YOU non-fanboy so-hip-it-hurts coolsters out there are at the other end of the spectrum. Which means you don't care whether or not a property is redeveloped successfully.<P> Hey, I got a list of movies for you non-purists to try - you might like them, they bear no resemblance to their predecessors in any way bar the titles (usually):<P> ANYTHING by Platinum Dunes (Texas Chainsaw Massacre, also known as the Jessica Biel Wobbler; The Ryan Reynolds Amityville Horror, Friday Supernatural the 13th), Rufus Waingwright's unholy THE FOG, Rob Zombie's HILLBILLYWEEN, THE SPIRIT, WANTED, AVP 1&2...<P> These Buds are for you. Have at them, you high-horsed non-purists. Re-invention is a GOOD THING, isn't it?<P> Fuckin' asses.

  • March 5, 2009, 4:38 a.m. CST

    spud mcspud

    by Ghostball

    The wantwed movies was a pile of shit and I'll never see it again, but the comic was so bad, I wouldn't even wipe the movie's ass with it. Mark Millar gives hacks a bad name. Anyway, everybody knows the Watchmen graphic novel is genius - if the movie is anywhere near as good, or at least anywhere near asenjoyable, then it'll be worth the wait.

  • March 5, 2009, 4:39 a.m. CST

    That should be

    by Ghostball

    'Wanted' movie. Hey, I never claimed I could string a sentence together.

  • March 5, 2009, 5:05 a.m. CST

    A Negative Review from here?

    by DafixersHideout

    Oh shock and surprise - a negative review from aintitcoolnews. What surprises next? It will be cold in winter? The economy is bad? Over eating will make you fat? The only site that out negatives this one is neworama, but not by much. So forgive cooler heads for not taking seriously a site that can find something negative to say about pretty much everything.

  • March 5, 2009, 5:12 a.m. CST

    This wannabe "review" sickens me...

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    ...to a degree I could've never imagined.<p>Well, fuck all this badmouthing. WATCHMEN is a great movie and I'll go see it a second time this very week.<p>Open your geek mind and enjoy!

  • March 5, 2009, 5:34 a.m. CST

    But Ozy doesn't get away with if im not mistaken

    by Six Demon Bag

    i guess its how you view that last panel

  • March 5, 2009, 5:50 a.m. CST

    It's about equal with TDK, but TDK wasn't very good either.

    by Ash Talon

    Both films are actually rather boring, too long, rely too much on music for energy & emotion, have meandering plots, and have characters you really don't care about. <p> I might give Watchmen the edge just because of ambition. It deals with stronger issues than TDK, but they both have problems showing us their theme instead of having people tell us it. Although, TDK feels more lived in and doesn't have gratuitous violence. Both mixed bags as far as I'm concerned.

  • March 5, 2009, 5:56 a.m. CST

    Suspending judgment

    by kingink123

    I'm going to see Watchmen on Saturday, but even after watching it, I'll have to hold my final judgment until I've seen the extended version on dvd. Its amazing what an extra 15-30 minutes can add to a choppy flawed movie. When I saw Snyder's Dawn of the Dead, I hated it, HATED IT. Once I saw the unrated/extended/director's cut/whatever, it really answered a lot of my problems with the film and made it so much more enjoyable and cohesive.

  • March 5, 2009, 6 a.m. CST

    And another thing about Director's cuts

    by kingink123

    I used to really enjoy getting Director's Cuts/Extended/Unrated movies on dvd. It used to feel like you were getting something extra. Now, this whole trend is irritating me. It's almost like you have to lower your expectations for the movie when you see it in the theater, take whatever crap they give you, know that the gore/sex/story will be trimmed to appeal to a broad audience who (at least according to the studios) can't handle excessive amounts of blood or sex or can't sit still through a 3 hour movie. Then you have to wait several months for the REAL version on dvd and pay 30 bucks to just enjoy the movie on its own terms. I remember a day when the movie you saw in the theater was THE MOVIE. I wonder if all this is just a money grab gimmick.

  • March 5, 2009, 6:06 a.m. CST

    Just seen it. Mini review. This movie is stale

    by hallmitchell

    Disappointed. Yet not gutted. The squid cannot save this film. Very wooden acting. Rorschach is just a cardboard cardout channeling Christian Bale. Prison breakout scene is a bad dance rehearsal. Too much gore and violence. The Comedian is just hammy. Should never have been made. This movie shows why Watchmen is unfilmable. Alan Moore will be chuckling to himself. I told you so.

  • March 5, 2009, 6:41 a.m. CST

    Loved it

    by Papa Lazaru

    Saw it last night . Loved it . I have read the GN too , however only once and while I enjoyed it . I did not believe it be "The best thing ever written " . The Dr Manhattan as the bad guy ( or supposed bad guy) ending worked for me. Sure, it wasn't as visually pleasing as seeing a fucked up squid monster destroy half the city, but in the context of the film it worked well . No major gripes for me . Matthew Goode I thought was a little flat . Ozy in the GN came across as the most charming Mofo on the planet , but here he is kind of limp , oh and scrawny too . Hard to accept him as being the pinnacle of human fitness . Other then that , there was one thing that I really got under my skin. For some god awful reason , they decided to make Nixon look like a cartoon character. Like a bastard child of Maxhead Room and Dan Akroyds Judge character in Nothing but Trouble.Complete with chin putty and fake nose. The make up was so ridiculous , that ever time he was on screen all I could focus on was the terrible make up .

  • March 5, 2009, 6:53 a.m. CST

    knowthyself: I read someones making a Norwegian Wood movie

    by Potatino

    I think I read that it in the Big Issue over here in melb. the other week..

  • March 5, 2009, 7:15 a.m. CST

    I'm glad the majority of comics passed me by in the 80s

    by adiehardfanwithalethalweapon

    Mainly because I can go see this flick without having my dick in a twist before I even get there. Didn't read 300 but thought the movie was ass-kicking good. Never read Watchmen but I'm sure the movie will be great. Too bad the real comic nuts have to go and ruin it for themselves.

  • March 5, 2009, 7:18 a.m. CST

    hallmitchell, you're an idiot of epic proportions...

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    So, WATCHMEN had [Quote:] "Too much gore and violence." [:Endquote]?<p>That's the dumbest yet most hilarious thing I've heard in a looong time, especially in regards to the adult source material AND the very fact that we get dozens of crappy PG-13 teeny bullshit movies every friggin month.<p>Rorschach is one of the most stunning, outstanding characters in that movie.<p>And you are simply an idiot.

  • March 5, 2009, 7:23 a.m. CST

    Bullshit

    by RobFromBackEast

    It's fantastic. That is all

  • March 5, 2009, 7:33 a.m. CST

    Tonight is the night

    by knowthyself

    Got my watchmen T shirt ready to go.

  • March 5, 2009, 7:42 a.m. CST

    I loved it!

    by Dingbatty

    It was much better than CATS. I will see it again and again...

  • March 5, 2009, 7:50 a.m. CST

    sounds like what's missing is...

    by almostgrown

    Moore's general disdain for people, commercialism, and pretty much everything in the world. if you don't share that view (or can't tap into that perspective), and from interviews I've seen of Snyder he's a pretty jolly fellow, then you can't present Watchmen with the necessary amount of cynicism.

  • March 5, 2009, 7:57 a.m. CST

    Ebert gives Watchmen 4 stars...

    by Cap'n Jack

    ...way to go Rog.

  • March 5, 2009, 8:06 a.m. CST

    What did I miss here?

    by Mooly

    I've read and re-read the review. The film is supposedly unfilmable...and doesn't work...and just feels off...but you never really say why? In fact, the only thing I took from the review was that you say the movies doesn't work because it isn't the comic, which seems obvious considering it is a movie. I'm almost tempted to say this review is worse than the one from yesterday that said the movie sucks because despite 90% of it being awesmoe, the ending is slightly different from the comic.

  • March 5, 2009, 8:09 a.m. CST

    I don't care how much it sucks!...

    by Aegisdgr

    I've been geeking out over this movie for the past 6 months, and will watch it in silence Friday evening. I am interested to know what my wife will think about it. I have read the book and the Motion Comics. She has only seen the trailers. I will let ya'll know.

  • March 5, 2009, 8:29 a.m. CST

    Judgement Day

    by Come_ON

    At least the fanboy fascist pigs have passed judgement on this movie, like they do to every movie, before it is released. And yet they will still go see it opening day. Hypocritical Nazi shitheads.

  • March 5, 2009, 8:51 a.m. CST

    Come_ON - Nazi shitheads?!?

    by spud mcspud

    Because a few purists voice their opinions on a not-quite-100% adaptation of the greatest GN ever written, suddenly they're "fanboy fascist pigs" and "hypocritical Nazi shitheads"?<P> You attention-deprived fucking child. Go gather up those toys you threw out of your pram and go stick your pecker in a beehive, you melodramatic hyperbolical puddle of slime.<P> Nazis. You fucking moron.

  • March 5, 2009, 8:57 a.m. CST

    The reviewer was Alan Moore in disguise lol

    by Eclipse7015

    And remember, a lot of people claimed The Lord of The Rings was unfilmable as well

  • March 5, 2009, 8:58 a.m. CST

    Come_ON is correct

    by MonkeyBoy88

    Except for the "Nazi shitheads" and "fascist pigs" bit. I re-read the review and kept wondering what made the whole movie suck if some parts were ranged from good to the "best Snyder has done." It's just fanboy harping. Sometimes people forget to breathe in a movie, sometimes people just forget it's a freaking movie or even how to enjoy one. The problem is the purists. They shouldn't see the movie in the first place. If they did, then they're not true, diehard purists, but rather wanking wannabes trying to show off to their netmates.

  • March 5, 2009, 9:06 a.m. CST

    Spud McSpud:

    by KosherWookie

    WATCHMEN was a 12-issue COMIC BOOK series. I know, because I breathlessly waited for every issue when they first came out! BATMAN YEAR ONE was also a COMIC BOOK series. The term 'Graphic Novel' was applied retroactively to both works when they were published in trade-paperback form. Now go put on your AquaMan Underoos, you'll be late for the short bus.

  • March 5, 2009, 9:07 a.m. CST

    A Negative Review from here? ? ?

    by sallylove

    Besides the passion for music, do you still get some heat for love and relationship? I 'm currently chatting with some nice chicks on ___Tallmingle.com___ which is a hot site for meeting gorgeous mature singles, hot models , sexy chicks, sensual milfs; It simply rocks!!

  • March 5, 2009, 9:16 a.m. CST

    Negative people...

    by chaps89

    I don't understand all the negativity but dont really care either. I just saw this on the biggest IMAX screen in the world in Sydney and it met my expectations. Its not unfilmable. It worked great as a movie and it retained the spirit of Watchmen, or atleast made me believe what I was watching was a faithful movie translation of the book Id read. I knew that ofcourse it would be different to how I had originally read the book, but still its 99% spot on and it blew me away. I dont understand all the expectations, your all setting yourselves up with negative opinions before the movies even been seen. Get a grip, the movies their for entertainment purposes so try to enjoy it for that reason-it did that remarkably well but still remained faithful despite being a commercial studio movie. I loved it, sucks that none of you negative geeks will.

  • March 5, 2009, 9:17 a.m. CST

    KosherWookie

    by spud mcspud

    I also collected the WATCHMEN 12-issue comic series. Then I bought the GN too. So, the comic was a comic, the graphic novel was a graphic novel, and the movie is the movie.<P> And it's better known as a graphic novel because it ain't the 12-issue comic series they keep on reprinting every year... it's the graphic novel.<P> So what's your point again?

  • March 5, 2009, 9:24 a.m. CST

    Clarifying 'unfilmable'

    by DoctorWho?

    Nothing is unfilmable...the question is will the filmed result meet your personal expecataions. For you slavish, detail geeks the answer is no. <p> I'm guilty of calling H.P Lovecraft's brilliant work unfilmable which is maybe more accurate because it is not an obvious visual medium storyboarded like a comic...but yes it IS filmable. And I will look forward to Del Toro's At The Mountains Of Madness too...should be cool. But I know going in it will never touch the experience of a book. Just enjoy Watchmen as a retelling knowing you can always cuddle up in bed under the blankie with a flashlight and your graphic novel and count blue dicks all night long like Arcadian!

  • March 5, 2009, 9:29 a.m. CST

    DOGSOUP

    by TheManWithTheHat

    Sorry, was at work all night and didn't see your comments until now... While I agree with you that they DO do some pretty geektastic things, I'm guessing it's more the radio station than those two morons...sorry, but I agree with some of the comments above : their show is unlistenable. And I have come to the conclusion that Fatboy's (AHEM) reviews are what makes me want to see/hear something even more, since I then KNOW I'll completely dig it!!

  • March 5, 2009, 9:47 a.m. CST

    watchmen is a trade paper back.

    by knowthyself

    A collection of the 12 issues of the comic. The graphic novel term really was just a way to not call it a comic anymore. No big deal but if you want to be specific...watchmen is not a graphic novel. Ghost World and A History of Violence are graphic novels.

  • March 5, 2009, 9:53 a.m. CST

    Roger Ebert as a point of critical reference

    by skimn

    It's well known that Ebert has a weak spot for films that take place in an imaginary universe. On the plus side, 4 stars for Dark City. On the negative side, 4 stars for Spawn.

  • March 5, 2009, 10:01 a.m. CST

    My simple advice to all:

    by smudgewhat

    Enjoy it for what it is, not for what you hope it will be. At the very least it should be an amazing visual feast with a lot of effort towards realizing the characters. Everything I've seen lately of Rorschach, Nite Owl & Comedian tells me I'm gonna be giddy as a schoolgirl whenever they're on screen. isn't that enough?

  • March 5, 2009, 10:12 a.m. CST

    No wonder movies are getting shittier

    by spud mcspud

    With so many around ready to accept "ah, it's okay, they tried at least" rather than something fucking GREAT.<P> If "meh" and "so-so" are okay in a movie, which has at least got 80% of the source material right... shame you all let SPEED RACER get away. I mean, it was MOSTLY okay, right?<P> Hypocrites.

  • March 5, 2009, 10:43 a.m. CST

    MOTION COMIC IS BETTER THAN FILM!

    by FleshMachine

    yep

  • March 5, 2009, 10:46 a.m. CST

    LOVECRAFT vs WATCHMEN: Unfilmable

    by Bort Cuse

    Lovecraft: Short-stories therefore difficult to flesh out. Very few characters per story with the main character usually recounting historical details or myths around the plot. An overarching mythology centred on artifacts, creatures, sounds, geometry, distances which are purposely behond explanation. Watchmen: A detective comic about superheroes. Ready made dialogue, characters, design, plot, even music.

  • March 5, 2009, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Oh, Hitler.

    by subtlety

    Well, I guess this isn't the first time we disagree about something.

  • March 5, 2009, 11:16 a.m. CST

    Hmmm..let's see

    by scors54

    65% fresh rating so far from RottenTomatoes, 4 out of 4 stars from Ebert, who has probably forgotten more about film than most of us will eve know, but KUFO (???) doesn't like it. Hmmm. This is a MOVIE, folks, and , along with trying to be faithful to the original, it has to bring in the vast majority who have never read the GN. TheWatchment virgins FAR outnumber the fanboy geek legions who will piss and moan if the color from one panel is a slightly different shade on the screen than it was in the book. GET OVER IT. The book is never the movie nor vice versa.If they even got close here, I will be impressed.And, yes, I owned the original 12 set back in '87. I was introduced by a student of mine as we were discussing greek and Roman Mythology and why the Greeks didn't need all of their gods to be perfect, but later religions seemed to.We had a discussion about juvenal's quote "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" and this kid almost exploded right there. He started describing the GNand, knowing I had been a comic book geek, mentioning the realtionship between greek gods and our own superhero mythos in the discussion, he knew I'd be interested. I was and that was my introduction to this really (IMO) great piece of work. At that point, I was a bit older than most of those who were reading it (33), so my perspective was a bit different. Yes, it is a really great story and a movie version will never be perfect, but let's please remember that it IS a movie. If all they set out to do was satisfy those of us who hold the GN as sort of scriptural text, they wouldn't crack $1 million on the opening weekend.

  • March 5, 2009, 11:22 a.m. CST

    Most. condescending. review. ever.

    by subtlety

    Take a look at what Phil Kennicott from the Washington Post thinks. What's surprising is that not only does he think the movie is crap, he casually calls the original Watchmen book --and Tolkien's LOTRs-- artless and without merit. Read it and become enraged (mind the gap - I broke the URL in to two parts)! <br> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03<br> /04/AR2009030403970.html?hpid=features1&hpv=local

  • March 5, 2009, 11:32 a.m. CST

    by Dblaze

    if u liked the book you will love the movie, the only way u could not like the movie is if uu didnt like the book

  • March 5, 2009, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Everybody needs to go see it stoned. Then you'll enjoy it.

    by iwasredempted

    i saw the big hit stoned and thought it was a really good movie. then i saw it again somber. was it good somber? no, god no.

  • March 5, 2009, 12:04 p.m. CST

    washington times review is pretty inane

    by FleshMachine

    the movie may well suck...but his analysis of the comic book says more about himself than the book.

  • March 5, 2009, 12:57 p.m. CST

    knowthyself, GHOST WORLD was a serial

    by DennisMM

    A trade paperback is a format, not a type of story. A TP collecting a number of issues CAN be a novel. For the last time, to everyone who makes this ridiculous argument, NOVELS CAN BE SERIALIZED BEFORE THEY ARE PUBLISHED IN COLLECTED FORM! Dickens's novels were serialized! The Holmes novels were sometimes serialized! A number of classic SF and fantasy novels were serialized! GHOST WORLD was serialized in Eightball #11-18 - over the course of FOUR YEARS - which immediately knocks your argument into the toilet. Give up, okay? You and all the other, "it's not a graphic novel" types.

  • March 5, 2009, 1:12 p.m. CST

    When you see that 50-foot cock in IMAX, then wonder if its

    by MrMysteryGuest

  • March 5, 2009, 1:12 p.m. CST

    unfilmable!

    by MrMysteryGuest

  • March 5, 2009, 1:18 p.m. CST

    agreed with subtlety

    by misterfaust

    It's hard to take this review seriously as your writing is pompous at best, but even an amateur like myself can pigeon-hole it.

  • March 5, 2009, 2 p.m. CST

    Purist fans are worse than fanboys

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Purists want everything done their way, while fanboys just want a movie.

  • March 5, 2009, 2:21 p.m. CST

    iwasredempted

    by DoctorWho?

    Why so sad when you saw it the second time?? <p> Or did you mean SOBER?

  • March 5, 2009, 2:42 p.m. CST

    The only thing worse than comic fanboys complain'...

    by django_il_bastardo

    ...is other frickin' fanboys complainin' about their complainin'!

  • March 5, 2009, 3 p.m. CST

    unfilmable, but animatable!

    by twstdbydsn

    http://tiny.cc/WflSf

  • March 5, 2009, 3:08 p.m. CST

    Still digesting...

    by TheUmpireStrokesBach

    But so far it is not upsetting stomach much. I'm thinking i liked it. Will wait for third viewing to totally decide. Unlike talkbackers who vomit hatred on everything before it's been seen. Write something yourselves, besides virulent little comments on a message board you fucking douche-nozzles.

  • March 5, 2009, 3:40 p.m. CST

    I hope this movie dies in boxoffice

    by ominus

    and hopefully the holywood idiots,wont fuck another masterpiece again or at least not at the immediate time.

  • March 5, 2009, 4:01 p.m. CST

    Movie will probably be gone in 2 weeks anyway

    by lockesbrokenleg

    killed at the box office by another shitty dog movie.

  • March 5, 2009, 4:05 p.m. CST

    Just watched it.

    by Harold The Great

    it's fucking awesome. My GF fell asleep, and my slightly bigger comic book fans friends weren't crazy about it, but I thought the characters were perfectly translated from the page to the screen. Not a weak spot in the cast. I thought I'll hate ozzy, but by the end of it I've warmed up to the kid. It's probably a little too long for most people. It also convinced me, that the squid wouldn't have worked, the manhattan plan makes a whole lot of sense. The song choices are awesome (just like they were in Dawn of the Dead). Looking forward to the extended cut - it should perfect for a long sunday afternoon. My only problem was the atrocious make up. What the fuck was up with Nixon and Silk Spectre?

  • March 5, 2009, 4:12 p.m. CST

    Perfect Ozymandias

    by drewlicious

    Would have been Kevin Kline 20 years ago. He was articulate, handsome, and seemed to have boundless energy. Remember him playing Douglas Fairbanks Jr.?

  • March 5, 2009, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Also the dialogue is so over the top

    by Harold The Great

    it's ridiculous. I loved every minute of it. But I can totally understand how a civilian can hate it with passion. (see, the washington post review.) Even I laughed on some of the things Rorsach said or wrote in his journal. His lines were awesome, that it was funny.

  • March 5, 2009, 4:51 p.m. CST

    I GOT THE REAL WATCHMEN RIGHT HERE!

    by spud mcspud

    Some lunatic genius animator put this together - it's the re-imagining of WATCHMEN as a THUNDERCATS / SCOOBY-DOO style Saturday morning cartoon. And it is fucking GENIUS!!!<P> http://tinyurl.co m/c8ouvp <P> I don't need to see WATCHMEN. Bubastis as Snarf is all I'll ever need.

  • March 5, 2009, 4:53 p.m. CST

    drewlicious

    by spud mcspud

    "I've got America's favourite superhero CLIMBING UP MY DRAINPIPE!"<P> Kline in SOAPDISH, in case anyone's wondering...

  • March 5, 2009, 5:07 p.m. CST

    Have no fear, the Watchmen are here!

    by drturing

    That Rorscahch, he's so wacky.

  • March 5, 2009, 5:14 p.m. CST

    "I'm nutty!"

    by spud mcspud

    Jackie Earle Haley, your time is NOW. Voice this sucker!

  • March 5, 2009, 5:25 p.m. CST

    I've seen Watchmen and it doesn't disappoint

    by Voyageur

    First of all, let me say that I'm not a fanboy of Alan Moore in general or Watchmen, in particular. I think he is a great writer, very innovative, of course, and that Watchmen is indeed a landmark in comic fiction, but the reverence thrust on him and his comic is slightly overdone. And all of that misguided reverence will surely infect this adaptation like a virus. But... I've seen it. On Tuesday, I was lucky enough to attend an advanced screening at Warner Brothers. And let me say this, IT DOES NOT DISAPPOINT! As an audience member, I went in with a a clear mind, relatively free of expectation and that debilitating reverence for the comic. (I just wanted to see a cool movie made out of a comic I liked, and that's all.) And Snyder delivered. It's the best possible adaptation for film. Aronofsky might have done it better, as he's great with psychologically damaged characters, but that's neither here nor there. As Gilliam said long ago, it should have been a miniseries. But WB wanted a movie, and so here we are... Without getting too specific, let me address the film's characters, narrative and visual style (with some nods to the comic itself), relative to the review above... The review says that Veidt/Ozymandias is a cipher. Well, I seem to remember in the comic that he WAS indeed a cipher. He did not emote in the comic. He was reserved, collected and distant. Matthew Goode conveyed these qualities to a very high degree but also brought an almost sinister quality to Veidt's cold, distant veneer. He's not just 'there' as the review would have us believe. He is simply playing Veidt as he has to be played. The review also says Silk Spectre II is just 'there.' Riddle me this: how could she be anything other than what she was in the comic? She never wanted to be a superhero. It's in the comic. She's a normal girl thrust into an extraordinary position by the force of her mother. She seems out of place. Malin Ackerman was fine in the role and on top of that, she kicked some ass. You want to blame someone, blame Moore... she's just simply not as rich of a character, not as dynamic a character as Rorschach or Dr. Manhattan. Ackerman inhabited the role Moore created and the performance works. Jackie Earle Hailey is pitch perfect as Rorschach. No need to worry on that front. Billy Crudup is great as Dr. Manhattan. Yes, some of the lip movements might be off, but it's nothing to get your panties in a bundle over. Practical makeup wouldn't have worked as well for the Doc. But his godliness and apathy are manifest, and I'll be damned of Crudup's voice doesn't sound perfect. As it stands, he glows visually and metaphysically. And Patick Wilson is perfect as Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl. No complaints there either. He conveys the awkwardness, the quiet desperation of someone who is lost without the crutch of his alter ego. Now, to the narrative. Snyder maintains the political and psychological narrative threads; so it cannot be said that the material has been dumbed down for the modern viewer. It is arguably the most challenging superhero adaptation we will ever see. And because Moore wrote the comic as if it were a parallel universe/alternate history, the film adaptation doesn't need to be politically relevant to our times (though it just might be), and is thus free to simply be an interesting exploration of what might have been under different circumstances (if these people were in fact real). Moving on... Snyder came up with some inventive ways of condensing the story, such as the beginning (which you will all see and I will refrain from spoiling) and the flashbacks. And as with the graphic novel, it is non-linear and therefore it does not pander to any mainstream need for linear storytelling. Snyder also fills in the gaps that exist between Gibbon's panels and Moore's words. The space that was left to the reader's imagination in the comic is herein rendered by the writers and director's imaginations. Naturally, not everything could be included from the graphic novel, so our imaginations are left to fill in the gaps of the film. Pretty neat, huh? Kind of like how Moore emphasizes that comics allow the reader to fill in gaps--to imagine the events in between. The ending is different, as you all have heard by now, but it works. It would have been nice to see the squid, and thus see the team of artists and psychics creating the Lovecraftian monstrosity, but I just don't see how it could have been done at all considering the time constraints place on it by the studio and the impatience of audiences trained to watch movies that clock in under 2 hours. Visually, the film is arresting--a beautiful, dark and violent vision that really isn't an exact replica of the comic. It takes the source material and creates visuals and sounds that only cinema could achieve. Again, it may not be Moore's vision, but it is a vision nonetheless and allows any fan of the comic to experience the story in a new and exciting way.

  • March 5, 2009, 5:57 p.m. CST

    doctor who. i meant sober. i'm a fuckin amateur.

    by iwasredempted

  • March 5, 2009, 6:59 p.m. CST

    I've seen Watchmen and it doesn't disappoint... an addendum

    by Voyageur

    I forgot, in my response to the review, to mention Jeffrey Dean Morgan as the Comedian. He wears the role well. Maybe not as massive and as gruff as the comic version of the Comedian, but definitely a treat to watch on screen.

  • March 5, 2009, 7:41 p.m. CST

    by Dblaze

    how can fanboys not like this movie its exactly like the fucking book

  • March 5, 2009, 8:39 p.m. CST

    drewlicious

    by subtlety

    hell yeah. Kline would have been gangbusters, although he would have had to play it very straight (he can be kind of manic sometimes). A young Sam Neill Might have been pretty fantastic too. All the people who wanted Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt were in the right direction; the only problem is that a big star would make it too obvious Ozy was more important to the plot than he initially seemed. But whoever plays him needs to be a charisma-blaster.

  • March 5, 2009, 9:13 p.m. CST

    I actually like this review.

    by Sal_Bando

    Pretty well cuts to the chase and sez why he don't like it, vs. PogoPope's little 'I don't like Bloo Dicks', which while certainly a cause for concern for the Village People doesn't exactly merit any time on our parts are readers. Tell us why you thought it failed as a movie, sir Pope.

  • March 5, 2009, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Ozymandias must have charisma?

    by Voyageur

    I'm not sure about this... Ozymandias never struck me as this uber-charismatic character. Like he said, his marketing people were over-zealous. I place him more in the persona of someone like the younger Howard Hughes. A name, a brand, an image or an impression that never really reflected the man's true nature. One might also compare him to Tom Cruise's public persona of the last five years or so, where this enigma has implanted itself in the public consciousness. I say the best way to describe Ozymandias is calculating.

  • March 5, 2009, 9:49 p.m. CST

    Everyone Bitching About "Unfilmable" is a MORON

    by Replicant23

    It's a standard Rethuglican tactic...ignore the salient ARGUMENTS and focus on one insignificant point, in this case the assertion that the GN is "unfilmable". That was a tiny piece of the review, and easily rebutted, so all the kneejerk worthless intellectually stumped fucktards on this site naturally gravitate toward rebutting this to feel OH-SO-POWERFUL-AND-RIGHTEOUS. Jesus, so many posts on "unfilmable", every one by a douchebag. Yes, mental munchkins. It is filmable. Yay for you. And now that THAT'S settled, maybe you can discuss the details of his review, or God forbid, go see the movie and post your own. (And personally, I'm with most readers of discernment, Watchmen is THE masterpiece of the Graphic Novel form. And so I'm not going to bother to see the movie. All it can do is taint an otherwise pretty much flawless literary experience. And for those of you who want to see the incredibly crude animation of the Motion Comic, along with ONE FUCKING GUY DOING ALL THE VOICES INCLUDING THE WOMEN'S VOICES, have at it losers. But in my book, it's lazy, crude, and sucks. Waste of money. Learn to read.)

  • March 5, 2009, 11:47 p.m. CST

    by jsherry

    It's funny so many people keep referencing Naked Lunch - I've always thought the squid looked like a giant asshole ("Rub some of that powder on my lips, Bill.")

  • March 6, 2009, 7:08 a.m. CST

    Alan Moore was wrong... dead wrong.

    by AgentCross

    The movie was amazing and beautiful. While the ending was the same the only thing that was changed was the way it came about. It still worked.

  • March 6, 2009, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Hitler is right!

    by drdoom_v

    He is WRONG about everything else exept is views about the Watchmen movie! That Youtube clip is hilarious! (And I bet you assholes thought I was going to go into some pro-Hitler rant!--And by Assholes I mean those of you idiots you liked the movie!!!) SEE YOU IN THE FUTURE A-HOLES!

  • March 6, 2009, 7:29 p.m. CST

    Voyageur

    by subtlety

    yeah, thats actually what I was trying (perhaps poorly) to say. I like the idea of Tom Cruise because Ozy is kind of a cypher. However, he's so smart and calculating that I think imagine he'd be able to win over anyone with ease. He's a golden boy, the only real popular hero remaining. He knows how to seem personable and charming and winning and even warm, when he wants to. The great thing about Cruise playing him would be that you already have that baggage, knowing that no matter how convincing and charming he seems on-screen, he's actually a raving loon.<br> Because of the vastness of his intellect and the severity of his plan, we can't exactly empathize or claim to understand Ozy by his actions. Is he more megalomaniac or humanitarian? Casting someone with a very strong charisma makes it even more difficult to know if Ozy is truly human or merely a master manipulator. On the other hand, if they just play him as a nutty effete oddball, they sort of deny us the question of whether he's a sane, humane person who has taken on a horrifying burden or just a brilliant sociopath.

Top Talkbacks