Watchmen - a DjfunkmasterG review

[DjfunkmasterG]

I finally caught it last night on Blu-Ray. Ok, I liked the flick, even with a 3 hour long running time I felt it wasn't such a bad film, and I have to give Zack props in that the martial arts and fight scenes were shot with the right amount of width too allow the viewer to feel like they are in the fight themselves. (Chris Nolan take notes)

My favorite Character is definitely Rhorshack (Sp?) without a doubt. The chick who played Silk Specter II was hot, had a nice body... gave me some eye candy which was cool. However, this is where I started to get a little ticked off. For the love of good, what is it with the need to sell sex in ever goddamn movie made, and was the overtly explicit sex scene really necessary to moving the plot forward. Zack, if you want to do porn, just get into the porn business. We'll understand.

Also, WTF is it with Zack and his constant need for Slo-Mo? I mean Jesus fucking Christ. If you got rid of all the slo-mo Watchment might have been 2 hours long. There was like an hour worth of Slo-Mo in this frigging film. My other complaint, and it is not meant to come off homophobic, but was it completely necessary to have every shot of the Blue Man (Dr. Manhattan) with his Phallus hanging out, and if you're going to have the CGI blu-man running with his tallywhacker swinging couldn't they have at least borrored Marky Mark's prostetic pecker to give the guy some girth, talk about coming up short.

All in all, its worth a watch, I am not sure if it is worth the purchase yet as I need to watch it at least one more time, but overall I was happy with it, and would recommend it to other Graphic/Comic book superhero fans.

7 out of 10

[bassman]

I agree on all points but Dr Manhattan's nudity. That didn't bother me at all and I've never understood why people gripe about it. Not to single you out, dj. I've had ALOT of people tell me that.

And about Chris Nolan's fighting scenes.... I agree that he should have slowed down and backed up with Batman Begins, but I thought The Dark Knight's fight scenes were much better.

[Mr. Clean]

The slow mo was a symbolism for them moving faster than normal people I think...well that's how I took it...

[DjfunkmasterG]

The slow mo was a symbolism for them moving faster than normal people I think...well that's how I took it...


No, it is something ZACK has been doing since his remake of DAWN of the DEAD. He like Michael Bay, is a slo-mo junkie. They think slow motion fight scenes and effects bring some kind of visual depth to the film. To me it doesn't but that is just me, slow motion should only be used when needed.

[MinionZombie]

I agree on all points but Dr Manhattan's nudity. That didn't bother me at all and I've never understood why people gripe about it. Not to single you out, dj. I've had ALOT of people tell me that.

And about Chris Nolan's fighting scenes.... I agree that he should have slowed down and backed up with Batman Begins, but I thought The Dark Knight's fight scenes were much better.
Indeed - plus I think part of the reason the fighting in Batman Begins was closer-up was simply down to the Bat Suit itself - there not being enough flexibility in it.

That was solved in The Dark Knight with the redesign, which most importantly gave proper head movement and freedom - so the fighting could be more sustained and better choreographed, and therefore the camera could be further back, not having to hide the limitations of the suit.

...

As for Watchmen - Manhattan's massive blue dong wasn't a problem for me, I just giggled instead - it became a bit of an in-joke with my friends and we all laughed about it, but I thought it was better than him wearing those black pants or whatever that kinda look painted on. It made sense really, cock and balls out is his natural form, and being that he is what he is, clothes don't matter.

But when he's out in public, like on TV, out comes the suit ... or at least the black pants, which makes sense you know.

...

Yes, that annoying mid-shot slow-mo-fast-mo crap was overdone in 300 alone, nevermind any other time in history it has been used.

Roschach really carries the film for the whole stretch though, and lets you overlook Ozymandias or whatever his name is being all blatantly evil from the beginning, as well as being really camp about how he was being evil (didn't like that performance, I have to say).

I'll be interested to see the DC (which isn't available in the UK yet), but if I'm gonna get it on DVD I want to know exactly what is going to be on the uber-5-disc set ... if I find I don't want that five-discer, I'll inevitably get the 2-disc DC DVD ... only time will tell.

...

I was talking about this movie to a friend the other day, who got enough enjoyment out of it at the time, but he didn't like all the talking, nor the pace, and groaned when I told him the DC was 25 minutes longer taking it up to 3 hours, lol.

It's not like he doesn't like talky films either, because he really liked Death Proof (as did I).

...

As for Snyder and Watchmen, I really didn't see anything (apart from the silly slow-mo-fast-mo crap) in it that said "this is a Zack Snyder movie". Plus he's only directed long-established material thus far, and while I don't expect him to direct something he's written, he really should get to directing a movie using an original script that's completely new and fresh and then see what he comes up with.

Although I would expect it would have to entail that stupid slow-mo effect...:rolleyes:

[Danny]

I finally caught it last night on Blu-Ray. Ok, I liked the flick, even with a 3 hour long running time I felt it wasn't such a bad film, and I have to give Zack props in that the martial arts and fight scenes were shot with the right amount of width too allow the viewer to feel like they are in the fight themselves. (Chris Nolan take notes)

My favorite Character is definitely Rhorshack (Sp?) without a doubt. The chick who played Silk Specter II was hot, had a nice body... gave me some eye candy which was cool. However, this is where I started to get a little ticked off. For the love of good, what is it with the need to sell sex in ever goddamn movie made, and was the overtly explicit sex scene really necessary to moving the plot forward. Zack, if you want to do porn, just get into the porn business. We'll understand.

Also, WTF is it with Zack and his constant need for Slo-Mo? I mean Jesus fucking Christ. If you got rid of all the slo-mo Watchment might have been 2 hours long. There was like an hour worth of Slo-Mo in this frigging film. My other complaint, and it is not meant to come off homophobic, but was it completely necessary to have every shot of the Blue Man (Dr. Manhattan) with his Phallus hanging out, and if you're going to have the CGI blu-man running with his tallywhacker swinging couldn't they have at least borrored Marky Mark's prostetic pecker to give the guy some girth, talk about coming up short.

All in all, its worth a watch, I am not sure if it is worth the purchase yet as I need to watch it at least one more time, but overall I was happy with it, and would recommend it to other Graphic/Comic book superhero fans.

7 out of 10

actually yes, yes it was. It's not explained too well on screen but he starts with a costume like a normal superhero, the only SUPER-hero technically speaking, and as he gets more detached from humanity and the human condition his costume gets smaller and smaller till he just stops wearing clothes because he literally see's no point in placing those atoms close to these and such because it serves no purpose. He never says it outright but its the subtext of johns character that with his godlike power ,that even he doesn't know the limits to,he starts to find human needs and social acceptability's pointless at first, and confusing and absurd by the end.
I'd really recommend reading the graphic novel its a fantastic piece of work.

-as for the slow-mo, snider was the director and thats how he wanted to tell his version of moores story and i liked it and it was entertaining. sniders a fan of slow-mo and this was a zack snider movie, it only really was noticeable once for me and you cant really complain because he has a staple to his work like that, every filmmaker has some, snider has slow-motion, abrams has his insane overuse of lens flare and bloom and tim burton decorates his sets with the contents of a 12 year old emo kids diary.
thats kind of dragging it into an auteur argument but i dont see what your problem is, you whent in knowing who made it, what did you expect?, and what is the problem with it?, should there be a bullet point list every filmmaker should adhere to rather than visually tell a story the way they choose?

[DjfunkmasterG]

I don't mind slo-mo, but when it makes up nearly 1/3 of your film, then yes I have an issue.

[bassman]

I don't mind slo-mo, but when it makes up nearly 1/3 of your film, then yes I have an issue.

That's where i'm coming from as well. The slow motion was cool. Alot of it VERY cool. It just felt like he relied on it a bit too much.

One thing I don't hear people mention too often is the title sequence of the flick. I don't know if Snyder did that himself or if he hired someone else to do it, but I thought the title sequence was PERFECT for telling the story of the Minutemen and setting things up for the alternate 80's.

[DjfunkmasterG]

The title sequence was good, but nothing memorable for me, hence why I didn't mention it. Personally I just really dug Rorshack and found him to be the most interesting character in the flick.

[Danny]

That's where i'm coming from as well. The slow motion was cool. Alot of it VERY cool. It just felt like he relied on it a bit too much.

One thing I don't hear people mention too often is the title sequence of the flick. I don't know if Snyder did that himself or if he hired someone else to do it, but I thought the title sequence was PERFECT for telling the story of the Minutemen and setting things up for the alternate 80's.

yeah it was a different group altogether that did the credits, wasnt it the same with his version of dawn?
but yeah the opening summed up the minutemen and the appearance of a second generation of costumed heros perfectly.

-and as for the dark knight comments i prefer watchmen, if only because the only person i gave a shit about in dark knight has eckhearts fantastic performance as harvey dent. But in watchmen i knew snider changed some portions and during the final scene between rorschach and john i was thinking "no, come on, he'll get away this time right?, right?" i was pulled into the story and really dug the characters. In comparison the ledgers joker was a great character but he felt like a character, you could imagine rorscach when he wasn't in a scene doing something mundane like doing the laundry, they where people, not characters, and then youve got batman, and i do not like bale. at all, hes got less of a range than jason statham.
Not to say dark knight was bad, it was a fun movie, i just didnt care about what happened, to be honest i was just there to see ledgers joker performance i didnt go in wondering what would happen to the batman, because its like i say about every issue of spiderman.

nothing happens to them.:rolleyes:

[MinionZombie]

thats kind of dragging it into an auteur argument but i dont see what your problem is, you whent in knowing who made it, what did you expect?, and what is the problem with it?, should there be a bullet point list every filmmaker should adhere to rather than visually tell a story the way they choose?

Zack Snyder ... ... and the auteur theory ... ... two things that just don't go together. :lol:

...


One thing I don't hear people mention too often is the title sequence of the flick. I don't know if Snyder did that himself or if he hired someone else to do it, but I thought the title sequence was PERFECT for telling the story of the Minutemen and setting things up for the alternate 80's.

No, like with Yawn04, the title sequence (the best bit of the movie in Yawn's case) was farmed out to an outside company.

[Danny]

Zack Snyder ... ... and the auteur theory ... ... two things that just don't go together. :lol:


that or they really do, thats the bloody thing about auteur theory, its the one thing in film class even teacher doesn't know exactly what it is.:lol:

[EvilNed]

thats kind of dragging it into an auteur argument

I disagree considering none of the directors you mentioned actually wrote their own material.

I think Watchmen is a fantastic flick, at first. But I've seen it twice now, and I have to say it's kinda dull the second time around. It's way too long, and Rorschack didn't woo me as he seems to have done with you guys. I liked The Comedian, but he fell out of the story really quickly.

[Danny]

i think out of all of them i liked nite owl the most, he was like a robin gone to seed, wanted to take on the cowl after his childhood hero but the bleak realities just sort of broke him down when his turn came around.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Well I do dig Rorshach, but Silk Specter II gets my vote basically because she was hot! Roshach gets the badass award, although The Comedian was pretty brutal in his own right. Anyway, Rorshach for best male hero, Silk Specter II for the female, and I would like her to spread some silk on me. :D

[bassman]

I would have to go with Silk Specter 1 before 2. Carla Cugino. Niiiiice.:D

[MinionZombie]

that or they really do, thats the bloody thing about auteur theory, its the one thing in film class even teacher doesn't know exactly what it is.:lol:
The only way Zack Snyder could be included in the Auteur Theory, is if being an Auteur meant you weren't one. :p

...

Speaking of which, I did write an essay a while back about Auteur Theory (two actually), one in general and one about George A. Romero. I examined the angles of why GAR is and isn't an Auteur, but came to the conclusion that he is - or at the very least, used to be (for the more sceptical folk out there, who regard his latest movies as "pish" ... even though I don't ... mixed bag, but Land and Diary are clearly GAR movies).

Not being all "look how smart I am", just came to mind, thought I'd mention it as it was to do with this side topic.

In the end I think auteur theory isn't a constant, but can come and go throughout a filmmaker's career - indeed, it can define it (e.g. GAR and Dawn), and that becomes "the bar" for that filmmaker ... they can find their best ground after a while, or find it immediately, but they can lose it too.

Kinda like John Carpenter after "They Live".

[Danny]

The only way Zack Snyder could be included in the Auteur Theory, is if being an Auteur meant you weren't one. :p

...

Speaking of which, I did write an essay a while back about Auteur Theory (two actually), one in general and one about George A. Romero. I examined the angles of why GAR is and isn't an Auteur, but came to the conclusion that he is - or at the very least, used to be (for the more sceptical folk out there, who regard his latest movies as "pish" ... even though I don't ... mixed bag, but Land and Diary are clearly GAR movies).

Not being all "look how smart I am", just came to mind, thought I'd mention it as it was to do with this side topic.

In the end I think auteur theory isn't a constant, but can come and go throughout a filmmaker's career - indeed, it can define it (e.g. GAR and Dawn), and that becomes "the bar" for that filmmaker ... they can find their best ground after a while, or find it immediately, but they can lose it too.

Kinda like John Carpenter after "They Live".

same here, but tempting as romero was i whent with kevin smith.;)

[DjfunkmasterG]

I would have to go with Silk Specter 1 before 2. Carla Cugino. Niiiiice.:D


Do watch Entourage? God she was hot in Season 3B as Amanda, Vince's new agent when he fired Ari. Man she was just fucking beautiful. She makes a few repeat appearances throughout Season 5, and when she gets angry she gets even more beautiful.

She was Gorgeous in Sin City, and imagine the first time I had ever seen her was in Son In Law with Pauly Shore.