Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

Watchmen is a movie that is unlike other movies, much like the graphic novel was unlike other books... Or graphic novels.

The writer of Watchmen, Alan Moore, does not appreciate or agree with the movie, however, I don't think Alan Moore would appreciate anything that could come from Watchmen, even if it was from his own hands.

Watchmen is something that makes the viewer think, and it is not customary for (American) audiences to do such at a movie. As such, the director, Zack Snyder deserves MAD PROPS. He manages to stay truthful to the book while also embellishing factors that would allow the typical moviegoer(and person who hasn't read Watchmen) to enjoy the movie.

Another unique factor with Watchmen is that is goes in depth for many characters-- more than just one or two. No characters are left out. Narration comes from two specific characters, however character development, growth, and history, comes from many characters, including some characters which might seem superfluous until later (as they are not technically main characters).
The movie pulls all this off in a way that, even if you're not sure of what's going on, you can get the jist and follow along pretty easily. All the characters interactions apply to eachother in some way, shape, or form, and the movie pulls this together very well-- dare I say a little better than the book did.

Watchmen was a novel ahead of its time, and as such the movie follows. I'm not sure if I could appreciate the movie fully for what it is without reading the book first. Despite it being amazing(for lack of better words), they're both hard to digest and even with the book I didn't understand many parts.

The movie seems to be less confusing, well put together, with many of the meaningful scenes still kept in tact, as well as beautiful imagery and the gorgeous symbolism of many scenes from the book.


Some scenes, in my personal opinion could have been done differently, however, when it comes to cinema, things must be changed to appeal to wider audiences.

For example, something that might be disconcerting to some viewers is the fact that the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, and continually gives itself pot shots through music choice and some angle/scene selection. There's nothing quite like 99 Luftballons playing right after a character dies, or a sex scene that so effortlessly mimics an <i>actual</i>, real life sex act so well it hurts not to laugh.
This may turn some people off, but I thought it was quite refreshing: Watchmen's a serious book with an ultra serious plot, but sometimes you just have to ask why it has to be serious all the time? The very fact that Watchmen is a superhero movie demands that it be made fun of somehow(from the standpoint of the movie industry) and the Watchmen movie pulls it off well enough for people who haven't read the book to not lose too much interest(at least in my opinion-- I'm biased, since I've read the book).

The novel had a severe lack of comedic breaks, and the movie manages to make some out of thin air. It's corny, but it works. At least it did for me.

Zack Snyder, I believe, did one of the best jobs I've ever seen of keeping both audiences happy. Where others have failed, I truly think Watchmen succeeds on all fronts.
He keeps the characters together, the histories played out well, the unneeded scenes out and the extremely confusing scenes making a bit more sense. The Watchmen movie could've been done a thousand and one different ways, but I'm glad it was done this way.

Can't wait to see the DVD's extra features-- willing to bet there are a billion deleted scenes and some sort of special extended edition, such as Lord of the Rings. =P

----
Now for some things I didn't like about the movie, for those who have seen it.
May include possible spoilers.

- Did anybody catch the 300 reference? That was pretty lame. (Comedian's apartment number is 3001 and in the fight the 1 gets knocked off, leaving you with 300 in the very beginning of the movie). I could've lived without that.

- Is it just me or did 99% of all foreshadowing just get tossed out the window? The ending seemed like it came out of nowhere. If I had not read the book-- actually, it didn't even make much sense either way. It's just like. BANG THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. "wait, what?"

- Almost all background on Ozymandias wasn't there. Which is understandable I suppose. However, Bambastis (the cat thing) was never, ever explained, and seemed to just be there because someone on the movie crew liked him. I know in the book Bombastis was rather important, but being as that task was basically nullified in the movie, seeing a huge hybrid lynx/tiger/cat/thing just makes me go "wtf? Where did that come from?"
It even seems like they forgot to add the cat in scenes until the very end. I never saw Bombastis watching TV with Oxy, did you?

- They never explained Rorshach's mask. On one hand this is a sort of cool mystery feature, but on the other hand, when you've a universe fundamentally based on reality, having some dude's mask that randomly changes is sort of weird. Then again, they did amp up everyone's strength abilities in the movie so I guess putting the "super" back in "super hero" wasn't so far off the mark, and having some sort of magical costume is expected.

- BULLET TIME WAS OLD IN 2001 WHY WHY WHYYYY

- I was HEAVILY DISAPPOINTED this line did not make it into the movie:

Right after Nightowl II and Silk Spectre II save those people from that fire.

WHAT DID YOU GUYS THINK OF WATCHMEN?!