Me too. First time I saw it, I thought, "This is legitimately the worst film I've ever seen."

Second time I saw it, I thought it had some cool moments, but it was still fucking absurd, poorly acted, gratuitously gross, pornographic, dim-witted (especially in comparison to the brillaint book) and fucking corny and stupid as fuck.

Get it away from Dark Knight on your movie lists. Get thee behind me, Watchmen!

Dark Knight isn't even a comic book movie. Not in the genre sense of the word. Like Road to Perdition and A History of Violence, it's just a great movie that happens to be based on characters from comic books. It fits in better alongside The Godfather, Heat, There Will be Blood, And No Country (as contemporaries) than it does next to frigging Watchmen. Blech. Blaacchh!

the Dressmaker. it's a fairly shopworn plot, but really well done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMEu-1CIB_I

I mean you can have your opinion on the acting or choice of actors or director and all, but as far as "absurd," "gratuitously gross," "pornographic" etc... I'm kind of baffled. Because it was pretty much a frame-for-frame remake of the graphic novel until the very end. It did have some really crazy shit in it that kind of shocked me. But that crazy shit was in the book.

I know that I'm in the minority on this one, but I'm always kind of confused when people say that they hate the movie but love the book. I'm not sure how else the movie could have been made honestly. It generally seems to me that those that seem so against Watchmen already were so before seeing it. Meaning, I tend to think some folks just don't want Watchmen to have been made into a movie and were going to hate it no matter the outcome.

Of course, your opinion is your opinion and as I said above - it seems to even be the popular one. But when I watched it I didn't feel like it was acted poorly or corny or dim-witted or anything. I just felt like it was a rather faithful adaptation of the comics... and that was really all I would have hoped for honestly.

i hated the book! :D

so i didn't watch the movie

so i have no opinion

yeah i'm just killing time here a bit, sorry :(

The orig. comic was groundbreaking when it came out but aspects of it have dated in a way that the film could've easily addressed while still remaining true to its message, but the director seemed almost intimidated by the original. That would still make it as good as the comics except that I think the film tries to squeeze too much into its running time (I agree with Terry Gilliam that it could've only really worked as a mini-series) and, for all its spectacular moments, Snyder's direction just seems really flat. Lots of stuff happening but little real excitement, or drama, or tension.

Saying all that, I don't think the film's quite the disaster some claim. It has some excellent moments. It just doesn't quite hold together for me. I do much prefer the original but I fall short of considering even that the greatest thing to ever happen to comics (which some, often those who hate the film the most, seem to). I wouldn't even say it's the best thing Alan Moore's ever done. For a lot of people (and I'm definitely not putting you in this category) it was probably the 1st 'serious' superhero comic they'd read, and I dare say for many of them it was the only one. Watchmen got a wider audience because of its association with DC, but for me Moore's Halo Jones stories for 2000AD are his best. They've been anthologised and if you ever see them, get them; if anything, unlike Watchmen, they're even more relevant now than they were when they first came out.

you make some good points. I'll give you that.

I'll even concede that the pacing is... weird. But again, I kind of feel like it was weird in the book too. Maybe even weirder consider the Black Freighter and Under The Hood stuff.

And yes - it was a very long movie. Snyder def had trouble sacrificing anything. I'm not sure if that is intimidation, or just wanting the length of the film to be justified by its source material. Then again, it was originally twelve comics. It certainly could have been a 12-part series a la Netflix's MCU stuff. Or it could have been into like three movies or something... but then again, I'm not sure how that could have been paced much better. I guess I'm just circling back to my original thought that as a movie based on The Watchmen, I'm not sure how it could have been executed better.

But to each his own, yeah? I loved it. I don't expect everyone to.

I also think Malin Akerman is really cute. Can we at least agree on that?

Watchmen is a masterpiece because it is the perfect amalgam of Dave Gibbons artwork and the text of Alan Moore. The images refer to the text and vice versa in ways that most comic books never sought to explore, especially on such a massive scale as Watchmen. There are myriad visual clues, and puns and foreshadowing which colors the story perfectly.

As far as it's rep, only people who truly loved and read superhero comics will grasp the entirety of the Watchmen. To anyone else it is just another superhero story, albeit dealing with their lives and issues and not totally just showing super smashing heroes.

From Hell was turned into a very stupid whodunnit film when the source material was so FUCKING GOOD and obsessively researched... It sucked

V For Vendetta is a great comic and made a very cool movie, even though it departed from the source material enough that alan moore dropped association with it like a bad bean pie.

(BTW I own all 12 OG V for Vendetta comix, the OG Watchmen comics, and the original From Hell.... just a little self-declaration)

The sex scene was NOT like that in the comic, bra.
Nor was it used to smear shame all over "Halelujiah."
The sex scene was so gross and tacky and classless and, yeah, pornographic, that I was literally (and I'm using that word correctly) in tears while I was watching it. My friend and I were laughing so hard... we probably pissed together.

It was super gross and hilarious, and very much like a cheapo Cinemax porno.

Also, the comic didn't have bones breaking. It didn't have gallons of blood. Not everyone was a super-ninja. In fact, that was part of the point of it all. These were washed up and broken people. Cynical, tired, old. The comic was built around blocks of text, relatively spare but colorful artwork, and deep conceptual themes, but it didn't have the self-masturbatory feel of that overly self-serious piece of crap movie.

Just my opinion. Lots of people liked it. Even I found it entertaining upon my second viewing. But it is *not* good filmmaking.

Finally, when has a shot for shot adaptation of anything worked? Shot for shot Psycho remake was shit on a skewer. You say "it's just like the book" as though that means there's no finesse required in translating something from page to screen, from segmented panels to continuous motion. There is a huge curve there, and in Watchmen's case, I think a more subtle take on the book that encompassed the *story* rather than simply replicating all the visual components would have been the way to go.

But yeah, I pretty much don't think it should have been a movie.

I don't even love the comic that much. Seriously. I just think it's brilliantly written. But the characters are abhorrent, except for Rorschach, and the movie went ahead and made him abhorrent too.

Honest trailers - Watchment. Go watch it.

"Featuring: Superman... if he was a DICK. Batman... If he was a DICK. And Wonder Woman... If she was a DICK."

It would have been awesome as an HBO miniseries. For sure. Also, would have been better directed by TERRY GILLIAM!!

Zack Snyder has some chops as a cinematographer and an editor, but it's like he chooses to take the low road.

well, agree to disagree. The skinemax didn't bother me - but again, as a fan of Malin, maybe I'm biased. But I mean - I thought the point of that scene was the whole they tried earlier and couldn't. But then when they were HEROES again they had that confidence back. So I felt like the scene worked as well as it did in the comic. At least in my mind.

I do seem to remember quite a bit of blood in the comic, though. I mean - the movie managed to tame the Rorshard dog scene a bit even. Just a little.

But blah blah. Whatever. We don't have to agree.

Like you said, you kinda didn't think it should be a movie. I'm the flip. I loved the book so much that I guess it made me love the movie even more. Just a different take.

If I never have to hear that fucking SHIT Hallelujah song again I will be so happy. Fuck that shit.

See, that's where you're wrong! ;)

Good point. And clearly I'm right!

Goddammit. Walked right into that one.

Society

I remember seeing this when it came out and not knowing what to make of it. Watching it now though, it really stands up. An obvious reference point is The Stepford Wives, but with nods to The Wicker Man, too.



Race with the Devil

A big fave of mine. A perfect fusion of satanic cult horror and car-chase action, with a great downer ending.

gal gadot-- ¡dios mío!

Wonder Woman, and it was GOOD. It was not just "fun for comic book fans," but actually quite fucking good all around. Truly. There were a few too many slow-motion action shots, but that's a small price to pay, because the story was SOLID, the characters were totally lovable, and there was a nice, broad palette of emotions at play that were missing from the rushed BvS and the try-hard Suicide Squad.

It was good. Good like Batman Begins was good. Good like Superman: The Movie was good. Good like Star Wars. Good, good, good.

Thank Zeus! Finally! An all-around critical and commercial success from D.C.!! The first since Nolan's departure! I worry a bit that Wonder Woman might be too good for dumb-looking Justice League.

Also I'm in love with Gal Gadot.

Wait did you see WW too?

Also, I've always said "ay dios mío!" Is that wrong? What's "idios?" Am I dumb?

The movie would have been half a move if they'd cast some boring white chick in the role. Like... I dunno... well, who are we kidding, it would have been Scarlett or Jennifer Lawrence. Both of them are lovely, but Gal is Gal and that is that.