Watchmen - Who Watches the Watchmen?

[FoolKiller]

I think that's why people want it in in the first place. But aside from drawing parallels within the WATCHMEN storyline proper, TALES OF THE BLACK FREIGHTER has no bearing on the actual storyline. Indeed, it exists within a fictional universe of its own, and thus was probably the first thing sacrificed at the Altar of Filmic Storytelling; assuming, of course, that the writers of the film even considered having it at all. Having some kind of text-within-a-text might work with fans, but it would be completely lost on casual audiences who have never heard of the graphic novel (much less read it), who will most likely form the majority of the audience.

As Zack Snyder keeps claiming that this film is mostly for the fans I will accept any fan service that does not work as typical Hollywood.

A very large part of me is extremely curious to see how a large budget fan service film turns out. Sacrifices had to be made in order to keep it real, and I understand that, but that is why until I see Zack Snyder's full cut (with or without The Black Freighter) I am still withholding total judgment. He turned in a 3:10 cut and WB told him to make it 2:30. That 3:10 cut is what we are supposed to see, and that will be where I make my final judgment.

I treated The Lord of the Rings trilogy the same way (I don't even own the theatrical version on DVD) as well as King Kong. Near faithful to the source movies are always better in their extended versions.



EDIT: I just finished watching the special features on the Blu Ray for 300, which I bought today, and in the featurette "The Frank Miller Tapes" where they discuss with Frank Miller about the comic, how he chose a few things, and then details on the movie from Frank Miller's perspective. At the end Zack Snyder and Frank Miller are sitting side by side talking and Zack is discussing how much he fought with WB to keep 300 faithful to the graphic novel. They even make a joke about them saying they had a test group that thinks it should be about a journey of 300 puppies. Anyway, Frank Miller was talking about how well he thinks Zack Snyder did with staying faithful in Hollywood, which gave me a lot of hope for Watchmen, particularly the full cut.

And then as that thought was in my head the screen fades to black. I think it is over and then it comes back up and Frank Miller turns and says, "I wonder how the hell you are going to do Watchmen." Zack Snyder rolls his head back and says, "Oh, uh, well...very, very carefully." Fade to credits. I never caught that when I rented it on DVD before. It was like it was a hidden joke, similar to the Watchmen frame snuck in the middle of the 300 DVD trailer.

But I think that this is giving me hope. Frank Miller talked a lot about how most comic book movies are actually just a Hollywood version of a character and source is just about giving you a character, not a story. 300 was the first time Hollywood tried to stay faithful to the comic book source material and make a direct translation to film (anyone that mentions LXG, From Hell, or V for Vendetta gets to spend a day with Rorschach discussing his love for puppies). Suddenly, I have a lot more faith in Snyder having this movie.

 

[Syntax error]

The problem is that THE BLACK FREIGHTER would need its own explanation and the sharp difference between it and the world of WATCHMEN would not play out very well on film, simply because it would slow things down. It might work in the graphic novel, and it might even be an essential part of the story, but the first rule of storytelling in films is that you only show whatever it is that you need to show. Anything that threatens that has to go.

And this will be the eternal struggle between the two mediums. The problem that we have here is, what makes the Watchmen so great is it's depth and the little intricacies that go together to make it what it is.... either way fingers crossed, I'm getting more optimistic and excited that each day passes.

......gets to spend a day with Rorschach discussing his love for puppies......

 

[YSSMAN]

Suddenly, I have a lot more faith in Snyder having this movie.

Does it make you feel better that Frank Miller wants him to make this:

I've always had a lot of respect for Snyder as a film maker, mainly because of his dedication to the material he is working with. Even going back to Dawn of the Dead (2004), you can tell that he wanted to honor the original to the best of his ability while also making it as recent and relative as possible... Likely why Romeo liked it so much.

Compared to the other big "current" directors like J.J. Abrams, Mike Bay, McG (btw, I had no idea he was from West Michigan!), and even the Wachowski brothers, Snyder has a real passion for the work that he is doing, and he feels that there is a massive responsibility on his behalf to make sure he is doing everything he possibly can to make sure not only the fans are happy, but that it is an enjoyable experience for everyone else.

 

[FoolKiller]

Does it make you feel better that Frank Miller wants him to make this:

Good luck getting WB to agree to that. Unless Nolan drops the Batman franchise (I haven't missed anything have I?) I don't see WB handing it over to that argumentative young director who has grandiose plans that cost a lot of money. Warner Bros. knows Snyder is talented, but he doesn't play ball by their rules. They probably see him as the guy to tackle the difficult projects that inevitably risk a fanboy outrage.

Compared to the other big "current" directors like J.J. Abrams, Mike Bay, McG (btw, I had no idea he was from West Michigan!), and even the Wachowski brothers, Snyder has a real passion for the work that he is doing, and he feels that there is a massive responsibility on his behalf to make sure he is doing everything he possibly can to make sure not only the fans are happy, but that it is an enjoyable experience for everyone else.

Honestly, I'm not sure what I think of a director whose artistic vision is to mimic the source as much as possible. Yes, it makes me happy that there is a director who won't let his ego get in the way of remaining true to a good source, but at the same time does he have the creative ability to make something from scratch?

He may not need that creative ability. If his deal remains as the guy that can pull off true-to-the-source films then more power to him, but where does that put him in the world of visionary directors?

Perhaps Zack Snyder creates an argument for why the "visionary" directors should not work with previous source material. Let them be visionary with their own tripe.


EDIT: And I just saw this today (spoilerish):

 

[YSSMAN]

Good luck getting WB to agree to that. Unless Nolan drops the Batman franchise (I haven't missed anything have I?) I don't see WB handing it over to that argumentative young director who has grandiose plans that cost a lot of money. Warner Bros. knows Snyder is talented, but he doesn't play ball by their rules. They probably see him as the guy to tackle the difficult projects that inevitably risk a fanboy outrage.

Although this is dragging the topic off thread, the argument I've heard is based off some generic facts:

1) Nolan wants to do a three episode arc for the Batman franchise, then he's done... But we may be looking at 2011, or later, for the next installment.

2) WB and DC have pretty much committed to making more, a lot more, superhero movies... And they want to focus on The Batman.

3) Current train of thought is, apparently, keep the Nolan arc on track, and then let Snyder/Miller do a TDKR set in the waaay future, or, get really twisted and make a Batman Beyond franchise (which had been kicked around before as well).

Either way, they want to cash in on Batman's current popularity. With the appearance of The Joker in Supermax (read: The Green Arrow movie), and the amazing success that has been Batman: The Brave and the Bold, a few extra Batman movies outside the current arc don't seem all that outrageous. Especially if that seven-title Batman idea is still being kicked around...

 

[FoolKiller]

Either way, they want to cash in on Batman's current popularity. With the appearance of The Joker in Supermax (read: The Green Arrow movie), and the amazing success that has been Batman: The Brave and the Bold, a few extra Batman movies outside the current arc don't seem all that outrageous. Especially if that seven-title Batman idea is still being kicked around...

The problem WB would run into with this is that unless they truly do put TDKR way off so that it cannot be connected to the current movie storyline their audience may get a bit confused.

It is a definite way for WB to cash in, but will also be a sure fire way for them to kill the franchise for another generation if they aren't careful.

And all that said, they may decide that they are not so enamored with Snyder/Miller after all this. The Spirit wasn't so great and in all honesty I have a feeling average audiences will not get Watchmen. They are going, expecting to see the next TDK or something (assuming they aren't hung up on that "Batman Wannabe" ), and I can hear them sounding like The Hollywood Reporter review, asking about the stupid Halloween getups (real heroes could not afford Hollywood quality multi-million dollar outfits), why they all seem so weird (real masked heroes likely aren't normal), and not liking that every character has a flaw that prevents you from liking them 100%. And like the THR review, they will probably be so confused by the story that they will think they are part of a group called The Masks.

And is it bad if a teeny-tiny part of me wants this movie to be so die-hard true to the comic that the average moviegoer has no clue what is going on and it fades back into oblivion to once again be the secret love of comic book fans?

 

[YSSMAN]

I'd say no, this movie deserves its own cult following as something that was created for us, by us, and rewarded as such. Its actually very, very strange how much Entertainment Weekly held this thing up on a pedestal, only to take it down as a disappointment. I really, truthfully, don't think that they "get it" either.

Have a look at these two pages:

Meta Critic: Rated at a 35

Rotten Tomatoes: Rated at a 76

Generally speaking, if the AICN guys are all in love with it, if /Film is otherwise in love with it, and presumably the TRS guys will be in love with it... Without a doubt, I likely will be too.

 

[FoolKiller]

Honestly, I am happy to see that their biggest complaint is it is too faithful. I like how The New Yorker's complaint was Snyder is being too much like Moore with his approach.

Oh noes!!!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Honestly, I am happy to see that their biggest complaint is it is too faithful. I like how The New Yorker's complaint was Snyder is being too much like Moore with his approach.

Oh noes!!!

After their review of The Dark Knight that gave the film a negative score but was vague as to what made it bad - they probably ratd it negatively to attract more people reading it - I'm afraid I can't take The New Yorker seriously. And if they're referring to the way the shots in thefilm line up with shots in the graphic novel, they're dead wrong: David Gibbons was the one who drew everything, not Moore.

 

[Small_Fryz]

Just watched a preview screening (gotta love contacts in the local radio station) having never read the comics before hand i must say its very good, though it goes for quite a while (almost 3hrs) and i will have to watch it again to get the most out of it, its certainly a "better the 2nd time around" type of movie i think. Unless you are familar with the comics then i assume youd be fine the 1st time.

 

[FoolKiller]

After their review of The Dark Knight that gave the film a negative score but was vague as to what made it bad - they probably ratd it negatively to attract more people reading it - I'm afraid I can't take The New Yorker seriously. And if they're referring to the way the shots in thefilm line up with shots in the graphic novel, they're dead wrong: David Gibbons was the one who drew everything, not Moore.

No, it is referring to the story.

The problem is that Snyder, following Moore, is so insanely aroused by the look of vengeance, and by the stylized application of physical power, that the film ends up twice as fascistic as the forces it wishes to lampoon.

Although, I am trying to figure out where the vengeance was. Has he confused vengeance and justice? Or did he watch V fro Vendetta and decide that he understands every Moore story?

Entertainment Weekly's quote is good too.

Even Watchmen fanatics may be doomed to a disappointment that results from trying to stay THIS faithful to a comic book.

Yeah, because fans hate it when you remain faithful to the source.

The New York Post reviewer does seem to get it though. He didn't give it a perfect review, whihc I never expected, but since they work on basically a watch it, don't watch it scale metacritic says they give it a 100.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Well, I didn't like it. I didn't like the graphic novel that much either; I understood the satire of the genre at the same time as the book was a tribute to it, but ironically in spite of the changes Snyder made, the film suffers the same problem as the book: exposition overload.

Say what you will about Alan Moore, but I think he's desperately over-rated. He has no concept of pacing his stories, and so while the first chapter set everything up, everything after that was just exposition. And while there was a little big of foreshadowing in the form of the artists on the island, it was pretty clumsy: given that the characters there had no relation to anything else in he story, it was bleedingly obvious that those scenes were important.

I admit I wasn't big on the psychic squid, and that I liked the way Snyder rearranged things to give audiences something they could follow, but my God was it talky. Blocks of exposition thicker than a porterhouse steak but nowhere near as satisfying, lengthy monologues that reminded you of just how long the film was going to run, and entire scenes that could have been cut if not shortened. It didn't help that Snyder decided to use every single camera trick in the book to the point where everything stood out. I still don't know why they call him a visionary when all he does is copy graphic novels almost frame-for-frame. Men like Christopher Nolan and Joss Whedon are visionary directors. Snyder's just a hack.

 

[Revheadnz]

Perhaps it's because I have yet to read the book. Perhaps I simply don't get it. But I was disappointed by this film. I got the impression that not only was a huge amount cut from the book but it seemed, like Do you race said, that many of the scenes ran overlong and had huge, seemingly unnecessary, chunks that (once again, as a person who has yet to read the book) didn't add any understanding to the story and seemed to be there just to be faithful to the book.

But I read other reviews from people who come as fans of the book and obviously understand it. And I think that not only do you need to read the book first, but you will need to have an understanding of the themes and representations that Moore was trying to get across if you are to enjoy the movie.

Watchmen is not a movie for casual moviegoers, and it shouldn't be advertised as such. Chances are some people won't understand it/be bored by it because I doubt it accurately conveys the story and the themes so prevelant in the book. But I think that maybe even fans will be disappointed by the treatment of it. Some of the acting was mediocre, and some of the casting could be called debateable, although I though that Jackie Earle Haley did a good job as Rorschach.

I don't really know in the end. If you are a fan of the book you'll likely disregard my inane thoughts. But for people swept up in the hype of the film I can only suggest stealing, sorry....buying a copy of the novel.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The thing is that Moore and Gibbons had a much bigger canvas to work on whn they made the original WATCHMEN. They weren't confined by a running time or a budget, and I suspect that the book actually reads better when you finish one chapter, wait a while, then start the next. There's a lot of information crammed in there, and of course most of it had to be stripped for the film.

But like I said, the book has its own problems that were never going to translate well onto the silver screen, namely the pacing. WATCHMEN is slow. Very slow. The first chapter or two sets things up, but most of the next two thirds is exposition. In fact, it's not until Nite Owl and Silk Spectre begin their relationship - once Laurie has left Dr. Manhattan, that is - that the story reverts back to the actual plot. Everything that has gone before it is designed to give you an understanding of the characters, their underlying motivations and why they respond to the climax the way they do. But Moore is terrible when it comes to pacing his plot because the exposition is simply and overload, and when the heroes work out what is going on, it's ridiculously easy for them to put the pieces together.

On a lighter note, here's something I found while trawling the internet instead of going to a ver boring formal dinner. It's Alan Moore's wildest dream; he allegedly put a curse on the film:

To me, it's just another reason not to like him.

 

[Sniffs]

I've been seeing the ads for the movie. more depressing BS. I'm tired of these "Apocalypse RIGHT now" style movies. with everything going to the hot place in a handbasket with the economy right now, this is NOT the kind of message we need.

 

[FoolKiller]

I won't comment on other's reviews until I see the film tonight, but it sounds like the main issue is it is too much like the book. As I have said before, part of me hopes it flops so that the fans of the graphic novel can go on the way we were. If it is successful I have a feeling it will be similar to when the X-Men cartoons came out in the 90s and suddenly everyone was an expert on X-Men, but they had this inaccurate version of the characters.

But at the same time, I want to like this movie. I want it done well since it has been done.

And I don't think you can call a Snyder a hack for remaining faithful to his source material, particularly when that is what he was hired to do. A hack would be claiming to be visionary when you stole a concept. Honestly, of the three guys listed I am only going to call Joss Whedon visionary, as he is the only one that can claim coming up with original ideas and making them work on screen.

I've been seeing the ads for the movie. more depressing BS. I'm tired of these "Apocalypse RIGHT now" style movies. with everything going to the hot place in a handbasket with the economy right now, this is NOT the kind of message we need.

Obviously you have no clue what Watchmen is. An alternate 1985 has what to do with today's economic situation?

A bunch of average guys (and one with actual powers) who try to make the world a better place is a bad message how?

 

[Syntax error]

Well I probably should start with saying I watched it at IMAX in Sydney which is the largest IMAX screen around…. I think a slightly smaller screen would have been better, I came out with sore eyes, sore neck and sore knees. It was big!. Anyway not with standing my physical gripes, my overall experience was a good one and I did enjoy the movie.

There where some issues with the plot that I thought could have been better and like Do You Race? mentioned, the pacing of the movie was pretty terrible. Some scenes where far to fast and others slow. Also found that sometimes certain things are simply implied in the graphic novel but had to be stated obviously in the movie (probably for the slower viewers ).

I didn’t think the guy that played Veidt would pull it off but overall I liked his performance and he suited the character.

Spoiler

I don’t get why they bothered with his lynx Budista (or what ever it’s called), there was no need or sense in having it there considering they showed no back story to the creature and with the squid gone, no explanation for it’s presence.

I took my wife and seeing as she has never read the book, I was interested in her opinion on what she thought. She got what was going on

Spoiler

(although she struggled a little with the start where they showed the Minutemen back story in cut scenes, I don’t think that would have made too much sense to the average viewers).

But apart from that she enjoyed it but certain not as much as TDK.

Rorschach was awesome, easily the star of the show. Really a stand out performance. I I noticed they turned up the gore meter on this one, there was some really graphical stuff in there

Spoiler

and also a few of the scenes made it in that I thought would never see the light of day.

Anyway to cap it up, it wasn’t perfect, but I liked it and will get the DVD when it gets released. .

 

[YSSMAN]

Without going into heavy detail (its 3:30 AM, and I have to be in-class at 9:30 AM), Watchmen was overall pretty darn good. As someone who has read the book four times through, I was sufficiently pleased with the small nods, nudges and acknowledgments of what was going on in the book that should have been in the movie. I thought the acting, overall, was pretty good. The Comedian and Rorschach were by-far the stand-out performances of the evening, the rest of the characters kinda falling flat (not their fault, they are anyway).

I think my biggest complaint at the top of my head was that I didn't care much for the "fixed" ending, but considering how well they pulled off the rest of the movie, I'm willing to forgive that for what was otherwise a frame-for-frame recreation of the book. Absolutely amazing cinematography, good directing on Snyder's behalf, and overall a good effort by days end. Just wish they would have kept the Squid.

=============

In the grand pantheon of modern comic book adaptations:

The Dark Knight > Iron Man > Watchmen > Batman Begins > X2 > Spider-Man 2

As a book, Watchmen is completely unstoppable. But as a film, I think the "personal" nature to the way we treat it ultimately holds it back. One critic classified it as Snyder being too careful with the franchise to actually put it to good use, the book being so good, he is afraid to show it all. To a greater extent, I think that reviewer hit the nail on the head.

 

[Sniffs]

Foolkiller: what I'm refering to is the penchant, since September 11th and the turn of the Millenium, for the Gloom and Doom 20th century equivelant of "the Dung Ages" movies that have been so popular (the current Batman set, V for Vendetta, and the various Environmental disaster/Nuclear apocalypse movies), not to mention the "biblical Apocalypse" type series my mother has a severe hankering for. we forgive the new twist on Batman because Bats and Villans were designed that way to begin with, and they're getting back to type (although getting Liam Neeson to play Ras Al-Gul was an odd choice, as far as I'm concerned)

lately, things have become so cold and pessimistic, I'm getting sick of what I precieve as "too much EMO" penetrating into pop culture lately. thanks various Gods that it's not all the Candy Crap "Donna Reed-ish" either. but this perpetual pessimisim is driving me totally bonkers.

 

[Danoff]

The Dark Knight > Iron Man > Watchmen > Batman Begins > X2 > Spider-Man 2

It boggles my mind that you could possibly put Dark Knight - with it's enormous plot holes - ahead of Batman Begins. Not to mention putting Spider-Man 2 ahead of Spidey 1...

I haven't seen Watchmen, but Iron Man and BB clearly belong at the top of the list prior to placing Watchmen.... clearly.

 

[YSSMAN]

Everybody is different I suppose when it comes to the assorted comic book movies, really, any chunks of storytelling in general. I prefer TDK to BB mainly because of the increased realism, the increased darkness that surrounds most of the characters, and of course the head-on adaptation of The Joker that has been a long time coming. I don't know many people who actually prefer BB to TDK, really at all, so I guess I don't know where you're coming from. As for Spider-Man 2, that depends on what you like, who you talk to, etc. I felt like S2 was more faithful to the comics in the way the characters interacted, how the villians felt, and how the whole story played out. In the end, it felt superior to S1 (certainly S3), which is a rarity on occasion in the business.

Just for fun:

 

[Omnis]

Yeah, BB should be at the top.

 

[niky]

I dunno. I thought Spiderman 2 was better than 1... but I also put BB above Dark Knight.

Reservations on where Watchmen goes till I watch it. Is it worth it to get those iMax tickets?

EDIT:

Just picking nits here, but Batman III, Terminator III and Jurassic Park III shouldn't even have lines. They were that horrible.

One point: I felt that Matrix Revolutions was much better than Reloaded. Reloaded was just all fluff.

 

[FoolKiller]

OK, so my thoughts:

Zack Snyder did as well as I could expect him to do with the constraints of Hollywood. Is it perfect, some sort of masterpiece? No. Does it deliver, in a fairly faithful way, the tale that is Watchmen? Yes. That is not to say that the necessary changes didn't cause some plot holes. It did. How much is filled in with the director's cut remains to be seen.

If you loved the book go see it. You will likely enjoy it, if just because all the major key scenes for the main story are there.

If you haven't read the book, read it first. This was not designed to hold hands for people that don't get it.

If you have read the book but aren't fond of it or don't get it then you will likely feel the same, as the point and tone of the story remains intact.


To sum up: I was in a theater filled with people who were dressed as Dr. Manhattan, Rorschach, The Comedian, and even Silk Spectre 👍. There was two sections of applause, one when some prisoners have the reality of their situation explained to them and again at the end of the film. At least from my perspective, this is fanboy approved.



I will be writing a fuller, more spoilerific review later on, and likely not as a post, but on something like a Google sites thing, just to avoid ruining it for anyone that doesn't want spoilers. I will link it here.

 

[YSSMAN]

Seems like its been a constant talking with more of my fanboy friends as well. It was "perfectly acceptable," but not "completely perfect." Since it appears as though we've avoided armed rebellion in the streets, I would call that a success on Snyder's behalf.

 

[FoolKiller]

Seems like its been a constant talking with more of my fanboy friends as well. It was "perfectly acceptable," but not "completely perfect." Since it appears as though we've avoided armed rebellion in the streets, I would call that a success on Snyder's behalf.

In all honesty, looking at Moore's novels turned films, this is the first one that didn't change the purpose, point, or even outright story. It kept the key elements and didn't shiny up the darker bits.

 

[niky]

I was tempted... but I didn't give in. I didn't read the comic book before I watched the movie.

Speaking as a comic book buff not familiar with the story, and watching it merely for the references to the rather obscure DC-Charlton characters I kind of like, Blue Beetle and Captain Atom... oh... and The Question...

That said, I had no real problems following the continuity of the narrative... and apart from wishing I knew the backstory connecting the old Minutemen to the Watchmen (aside from the fact that both Comedian and Silk Spectre are connected to both), I found it actually worked.

I was looking hard for what other reviewers were criticizing. Sure, the acting from some people wasn't top top-notch, but it was more than good enough, and Roscharch, in particular, stands out as the star of the whole show.

Spoiler

Which makes the ending almost anti-climactic, though he does have the last laugh... and this is portrayed exactly as it is in the comic, I'm lead to believe...

Overall... a 9/10... until I read the comic and change my mind. I didn't like the ending, but it was a very thought provoking movie.

 

[FoolKiller]

until I read the comic and change my mind. I didn't like the ending, but it was a very thought provoking movie.

I'm curious why you didn't like the ending. It is very similar to the end of the comic, but there is minor difference in the comic that doesn't make it so obvious.

But the point at the end wasn't about who knows what, but rather who you agree with.

 

[niky]

Maybe it's the sentimentalist in me.... I would have rather seen the idealists win.

I understand it's all about picking which side of the coin (or which facet of the dice?) you agree with... and I realize that it's what was in the book. I'm a sentimentalist, and even if I knew what was coming, and knew that this was logically the story's conclusion, I would have liked the resolution different.

Spoiler

It's an interesting story, in and of itself. The ending is a bit telegraphed... via the Chekov's shotgun effect... due to the constraints of movie making, you leave in most of what you need and have to cut out the excess... which means what you leave in must be significant... which means that many of the clues are there in plain sight.

What I didn't like was the discordant note of Dr. Manhattan's final act. It's puzzling, to me, from a writer's perspective how John handled it. Having found his humanity once again, he loses it in his final act on Earth. Moore sets us up to understand each Watchman's motivations and personality, then does this... maybe the comic has more clues.

On second thought... maybe it's his acceptance of his growing inhumanity... he discovers that he still has human feelings, but that he can't stand the human condition, anymore...

Night-Owl's last act on this same set, at Ozymandias's lair... is a venting out of his anger, his frustration, at his continued impotence in all things that matter. It's what's expected.

As is Rorscharch's last act. Rorscharch is the one character that continues to refuse to compromise his ideals. And for that, he allows himself to die. It's one of the few viewpoints that stands out in this film, as it is the basic Batman/vigilante theme taken to its extreme, justice above all, but taken to its conclusion in all its brutal glory.

The Comedian, strangely, is the one character in this whole set-piece that comes off as more human than caricature... and yet that's what he naturally is... a caricature of Gung-Ho G.I. Joe Americana. Yet he's a surprisingly complex character, right at the end.

Either way, the movie has convinced me to actually read the comic book. And if it's better than the movie, I can understand why it won the Hugo Award... one which isn't given lightly.

Understand, the ending didn't hurt my appreciation of the movie. I just thought that that one sole element just didn't make sense. But in terms of comic-based movies, or at least comic stories that are made into movies, Watchmen makes more sense than anything else.

 

[Giancarlo]

I watched the movie having never read the book, and overall i enjoyed it. I'm glad it was rated R, because i'm fairly sick of the kapow! family superhero movies (no matter how much spectre and owl's fight scenes tried to make it into that).

My friends had never seen the book either, but most of the movie just went way over their heads. Although i do agree with them that once

Spoiler

Ozy turned out to be the villain, the movie kind of took a downward spiral into the typical superhero movie.