 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 9, 2009 - 12:15 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Warlok
(Member)
|
The Movie:
[SPOILER]
Excellent. I feel I need to counter sentiments concerning violence and sex in this film though. Some people have evinced an aversion to what they might characterize as excessive or gratuitous gore and brutality, the latter being in the "rape" scene.
To be sure, it is an *attempted* rape scene. I have witnessed far 'worse' in other venues/films. Honestly, this rape scene was pretty tame. That is not to say the event itself was not villainous, just that I found it to be what it needed to be. Nothing excessive. Of course, if a depiction of a rape is to take place, how can one depict that without... umm... depicting it?!?!??
[END OF SPOILER]
As for violence, this relates to the violence response by some to Stallone`s latest Rambo film, wherein people have body parts explode when struck by bullets. Ummm, yeah. This is realistic. The violence in Watchmen is similarly realistic. There is a reason why crime scene and actual 'dirty business' war imagery does not get broadcast. Because some censor out there deems the reality of carnage too much for us. The films that portray violent scenes and which do so realistically do so for the sake of telling that kind of story. Watchmen is no exception.
The entire notion that you can tell a villanous tale without portraying villainy is ludicrous. I would very much one day like to see society stop childishly obsessing over such things and focus more on whether or not the story was entertaining and/or logically thought out. Violent/brutal... thats a story element necessary or not, to whatever degree the creators deemed it so. The assets are moot to the overall effectiveness. Featuring such assets intrinsically means nothing.
The Music:
What score was present was very good. Sounded suitably tragic and suitably heroic (in a darker fashion) as appropriate. Were the entire score of that nature I am confident I would pick it up, unfortunately many period songs are utilized, to though a fairly evocative degree, also a detrimentally musical degree. I would have preferred about 60% less song and a more theatrically acceptable/conventional scoring opportunity. I am pretty confident the composer would have filled the gaps with good work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Watchmen's violence... (and this isn't directed to anyone in particular),
I'm not a milquetoast when it comes to violence in films. One of my favorite movies of all time is George Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD, which (of course) has bloody, gory violence throughout -- but to me, the violence has a specific point in the service of this horror film.
What I'm NOT a fan of, though, is violence that isn't really in service to the story you're trying to tell -- and the story had damn well better be compelling enough to be worth telling. The violence in FALLING DOWN (for example) is shocking, but it conveys a point about the sickness that the protagonist is seeing around him in society. The violence is RAMBO is so insanely over-the-top as to become ridiculous, and if you say, "well, the film couldn't be realistic unless they showed people exploding when getting hit by .50 caliber shells!" (which *would* happen, BTW), then my retort to that would be, "okay, fine -- but was the film worth making to begin with as a vehicle for this violence?"
Filmmakers walk a thin line between making violence realistic and getting a particular response from an audience, and making violence simply another effect to zap an increasingly jaded audience into being shocked... for the moment. People ho-hum when they see someone knifed in a horror film, so let's show someone being DRILLED through the legs! (As in HOSTEL.) People yawn when they see someone shot and killed in an action film, so let's see them EXPLODE when they're hit! (As in RAMBO.) People get bored and start texting their friends when they see a martial arts fight scene... so let's have them visibly break bones and ram knives THROUGH people's forearms! (As in WATCHMEN.)
So, don't tell me that I can't decry violence in films because violence "should" always be shocking, and "should" always be revolting. That's not the point here. The point is that showing violence should be in the service of something greater than simply jolting -- or actually titillating -- the morally-suspect teens in the audience who think such things are "kewl" and hip.
"Shocking" people is easy -- you just keep turning up the dial. "Engaging" people is hard, but of much greater importance... which is why many Hollywood filmmakers don't bother, because they're lazy and/or lack genuine imagination.
Much of the violence in WATCHMEN wasn't necessary -- not because I'm squeamish, but because it simply felt gratuitous and piled-on to get a reaction out of desensitized people, or to thrill the kiddies. Having the Comedian hit and knock down Silk Spectre was shocking enough... but having him hit and kick her repeatedly simply became sadistic not just to the character, but to the audience as well. Ditto Rorshach's repeated meat-cleaver bludgeoning of the child killer (not that he wouldn't deserve it.) And finally, Dr. Manhattan's disintegration of people didn't need to leave bloody bones and entrails strewn across the landscape (that wasn't even in the comic.) Instead, it was a pointless horror-film effect that was literally played for sick laughs for the too-cool-for-school kids in the audience.
When I watch a film, I don't want to feel that I have become nothing better than a spectator at the Colosseum in ancient Rome, cheering on people getting savaged, and joyous because of the sole fact that, "hey, at least that's not ME getting my intestines torn out!"
Ultimately, I didn't find WATCHMEN good enough to rave about, or offensive enough to rant about, save my comments about some of the violence being unnecessary. It was surprisingly unmemorable, to me, which was pretty much my reaction when I first read the graphic novel some 7-8 years ago and thought, "this is what everyone is praising to high heaven?"
The film is down to 65% on Rotten Tomatoes, and it didn't make as much money this weekend as some people were projecting. As I said earlier, I think this film is going to have a steep dropoff, and will probably end up being considered a financial disappointment, if not an outright bomb.
Whatever -- at least the WATCHMEN fanboys got this out of their systems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All I can say about the violence debate here is that it's all a matter of degree and that the level present in the movie seems not worth carping about. Other aspects of it are enough to make it the hit with me that it is.
Re: the score (not much talk about that!). I've noticed the negative feeling towards Tyler Bates here at FSM boards. Personally I've never heard his work before and never seen a film with one of his scores. I thought this one serviced the film well and I listened to the score CD afterwards. I was pleasantly surprised. I think it had a certain left-of-centre quality that suited the film. I began to think of Blade Runner while listening to it, then - sure enough - a track which was very reminiscent of the Vangelis work. Temp track copy, perhaps? I don't know. Certainly the score was not a dud, for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 9, 2009 - 2:46 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Sarge
(Member)
|
One man's opinion: (SPOILERS)
I enjoyed the film. It's handsomely made, and it strikes a careful balance between exposition and pacing.
Does it contain all the detail and nuance of the graphic novel? No - how could it? Is it a sensible, streamlined adaptation that retains the spirit and essence of the graphic novel? Yes.
The writing is slavishly faithful to Moore's work - all they did was judiciously prune away certain B-stories and tangents. And the acting is quite good overall. Sure, Malin Ackerman is the weakest of the bunch, but not so much that she undermines the film.
Is it violent? Yes. Is it more violent than the graphic novel? Here and there, perhaps - but not overall. The Comedian savagely punches and kicks Silk Spectre in the comic. Difference is, those were comic-book panels. It feels considerably worse when you see Carla Gugino getting punched and kicked.
Conversely, they also toned down or eliminated certain violent moments from the graphic novel. For example, the filmmakers chose not to show us thousands of dead New Yorkers lying in pools of blood.
Is Tyler's score dreadful? No. Is it memorable? No. It services the movie adequately.
Again, one man's opinion. Bear in mind that I have only recently read WATCHMEN (and admired it greatly), so I haven't been canonizing it for the past twenty years. It's not sacred text to me.
And no matter what you think about the film, you have to admire the fact that they committed to making a 130 million-dollar (plus 50 million in advertising) R-rated comic-book film featuring rape, child molestation and a blue glowing penis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 11, 2009 - 4:05 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
antipodean
(Member)
|
Expectations going in - given the density of the original novel, I suppose it was always a given that the film would let someone down.
After watching it, I think audiences who hadn't read the novel, expecting some sort of superhero action movie, would have been bored or dismayed or, quite possibly, shocked. Audiences who had already knew the novel, on the other hand, would probably have been surprised, if not disappointed, by how much was omitted, altered and emphasized from print-to-screen.
On the other hand, keeping in mind that from the day the novel was first published, and how cinematic those picture panels were designed and drawn, the idea of turning it into some sort of filmatic format was quite an obvious one. Lord knows various filmmakers, screenwriters and producers haven't been trying all these past years; but it took Snyder to actually accomplish it.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, there is always some compromise in the transition from print-to-screen, because both are inherently different mediums. I don't expect nor demand obsessive faithfulness to the source material; but it is important to me that the story retains its integrity as a screenplay, and that it reflects faithfulness to the source material. (Example in mind: the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy.)
Some self-proclaimed purists will spit venom on it, no matter what, but then they would react that way at anyone (except themselves, in their own minds) who tried to adapt it. It's worthwhile to bear in mind that Snyder's decision to drop scenes and story/character arcs, while emphasizing other scenes and story arcs, will offend somebody out there - but the fact is that he did it. It was a necessity of the filmmaking process. Insofar that the movie has to be made for fans, it also has to address a general audience as well.
There were specific things I didn't like, such as the overly-stylised (if not fetishistic) levels of violence, or the variable quality of acting. But that happens in any movie when I watch with a slightly more critical eye, and this book has been in my head for the last 20 years or so (so perhaps that's a bias there already.) On the other hand, it didn't pander to my intelligence, and it stayed faithful (at least in Snyder's interpretation) to the novel. Certainly it didn't "betray" the novel, and in some ways, came off better than I'd feared.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not think Snyder is a hack. He has demonstrated a good sensibility when it comes to editing, camera work (composition and framing of shots), and a general solid ability to put film together. Maybe a little too much slow motion in 300 but DotD was an exceptionally well made horror film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Snyder shows a nice balance of the slow motion in Watchmen and with his work on this film it's refreshing to see well-choreographed super hero fight scenes in which the fighting is actually visible. I hope that between Watchmen and last summer's The Incredible Hulk and The Dark Knight, filmmakers might start to put some actual thought and gravitas into the action scenes.
Actually, I found the violence way too over the top in a manner that hurts this story. There were only five or so guys in the alley that attack Laurie and Dan on the way home from Hollis Mason's house, and they are alive following their encounter. Snyder is so excited by the prospect of violence that he turns five guys into an entire street gang, and Laurie and Dan take them apart... almost literally. Blake's attempt on Sally is unnecessarily protracted. People Jon kills don't just disappear, they explode. All this makes it difficult to ascertain exactly what the distinctions between Rorschach or Blake, who kill with aplomb, and the other characters who find them unsavory when this level of carnage is being perpetrated by everybody.
If the whole point of Watchmen is that these are not specially powered people at all — the only metahuman on display is Jon, which is vitally important to the story — using such things as Hong Kong wire fighting techniques in the action sequences and the completely unbelievable level to which the fights are taken make it very difficult to accept that these aren't superheroes. I swear, if it was a plot point that somebody pricked their finger with a pin, Snyder would have shown it close up and in slow motion with a loud sound effect for the impact and squicky noises for the needle's penetration.
On the whole, I felt that the film was a rather decent adaptation, capturing most of the themes of the book and with very good characterization. I am not a squeamish person, I don't mind violence when it is in service of the story, but Snyder's violence fetish turns an already intense story into something much more brutal than it has to be. The meat cleaver is just way too over the top for that scene (and also screws up Rorschach's character a bit).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 12, 2009 - 12:34 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Warlok
(Member)
|
I never got the impression that these heroes were merely conventionally endowed humans. You *could* get that impression from the story, but I believe the first scene with The Comedian lays that perspective to rest.
The film didn`t go into any detail concerning origins for these exceptional capabilities except in Dr. Manhattan`s case. I didn`t think such was necessary to either the enjoyment of or to the believability of the film. Somehow for some reason these individuals are beyond exceptional, and that is a good enough leap of logic/sci-fi faith for me to follow the rest of the story with full appreciation. They may be humans with flaws, but they are still super; I don`t believe the director ever set out to claim otherwise.
About violence... you see, thats where subjectivity comes to bear. Rambo was not gratuitous. Nor have the Saw movies been. Nor was Saving Private Ryan (particularly when the Americans are literally blown to pieces by what we grognards - humbly limited by comparative wargaming experience as I admit I am - *used to* refer to as a 'useless' 20mm cannon).
[SPOILER]
Dr. Manhattan`s slaying is intended to disturb you with its horror, to reinforce the terror of a megabeing walking the earth. With but a thought he can atomize you. Is he human anymore? What morality eventually comes to this being? Thats the core of his character and part of the essence of the Watchmen tale - arrogance of power, morality of sacrifice, management of petty minds that somehow invariably lead society. Without that diametric shock to Manhattan`s civility, I don`t think the philosophies we ponder would then be as intense or important.
[END OF SPOILER]
Those who experience war are those best positioned to fight against it.
And yes, violence is fun, too. Can`t forget that.
[SPOILER]
Rape scene too much? Phhh - the rape scene from Clint Eastwood`s western was longer and more disturbing. This was an *attempted* rape scene. A Hangman character pleasantly (satisfyingly) pummels the perpetrator. I can`t understand a distaste for this bit of theater. Oh well.
[END OF SPOILER]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
