I watched it, been wanting to see it for a while now. It was brilliant, the beginning was a bit baggy, but things tightened up and I really enjoyed it, apart from one scene.
I still have the image of the
meat cleaver
scene in my head. That was horrible and disturbing, I saw the first strike and the image of
it half entering his head
was enough to make me turn away. I get that the scene was supposed to be horrifying, but you could have just implied it, Zack, with equal effect. :eek:
I felt that stylistically some bits felt out of place like the
arm sawing
scene. It makes sense in context, but the way it was presented on screen was a bit odd.
What's with all the rape references? Seemed a bit unnecessary, but probably just spillover from the comic/graphic novel.
And was Rorschach deliberately doing everything possible to sound like Christian Bale's Batman?
If you didn't like the meat cleaver scene in the version you watched last night, for gods sake don't ever watch the Directors Cut. If i remember correctly it's actually more violent.
If you didn't like the meat cleaver scene in the version you watched last night, for gods sake don't ever watch the Directors Cut. If i remember correctly it's actually more violent.
I really wanted to see the Director's Cut after watching the theatrical cut. By more violent, did you mean the entire film or just that scene. I was fine with all of the violence, except that scene.
Can you remember if there's anything as gut-wrenching as that inserted? If there isn't I'll be fine, I know when to cover my eyes now...
it looked great - I've never seen a film adhere to the comic in terms of visuals and costumes etc so well. and the casting was near perefect .
but they f'd up the drama , stories were condensed too much , for instance rorshach's back story , he just immediately tells the shrink what happened to him , same with Laurie , Manhattan just does a 'mind-meld' , it's like they're saying 'we haven't got time for all that' .
thing is - I think they did have time , there's a lot of time wasted on music montage scenes and slow-mo fights which go on way too long .
I dunno, I can't really pinpoint a specific thing. Maybe if I tried watching it again I might enjoy it the second time. That has happened before with movies that I haven't enjoyed the first time.
The lingering on slo-mo violence was the only real fault I could find with Watchmen.
Has Zack Snyder ever made a movie at a constant speed all the way through?
The lingering on slo-mo violence was the only real fault I could find with Watchmen.
Has Zack Snyder ever made a movie at a constant speed all the way through?
This is what I was going to say. Watchmen could have been a good movie if they hired a proper director. Not some dweeb in love with slowing down the film (literally) every five minutes.
This is what I was going to say. Watchmen could have been a good movie if they hired a proper director. Not some dweeb in love with slowing down the film (literally) every five minutes.
The film went through development hell, Zack Snyder was probably the only person willing to touch it, and most certainly the only person willing to do a faithful adaptation of the comic. Warner Bros. wanted a modern day setting and a PG-13 rating (with only the modern day setting negotiable), my understanding is that Snyder had to fight for the R.
Also, is having a unique visual style really a bad thing for a director?
I quite like this film, but then that's possibly because I'm not a fan of the superhero genre (at least the majority). BTW, the opening credits were excellently done and were used to give some history to the beginnings of the Watchmen.
I quite like this film, but then that's possibly because I'm not a fan of the superhero genre (at least the majority). BTW, the opening credits were excellently done and were used to give some history to the beginnings of the Watchmen.
I think the opening credits were a bit too long, and made the beginning feel a bit baggy...
I think the opening credits were a bit too long, and made the beginning feel a bit baggy...
I don't agree at all. It gave you some history, was rendered well, a great and appropriate song being played, some great visuals, and all the scenes were appropriate to the original comic. They fit in a lot of the history of the group of characters in a few minutes. Time well spent.
I really wanted to see the Director's Cut after watching the theatrical cut. By more violent, did you mean the entire film or just that scene. I was fine with all of the violence, except that scene.
Can you remember if there's anything as gut-wrenching as that inserted? If there isn't I'll be fine, I know when to cover my eyes now...
It's been a few years since i watched it but i do seem to remember there being a few more violent scenes and scenes where the violence was made more graphic when compared to the theatrical cut. Specifically i think that the Comedian's bar fight had a few more gory shots, and the aforementioned meat cleaver scene contained more strikes to the guys head (iirc).
It's a great film though, and the Director's Cut makes it even better with the additional 20-30 minutes of scenes helping it flow better, so i wouldn't let the added violence put you off:)
There's two extended versions, the director's cut and the ultimate cut (the director's cut with The Tales of The Black Freighter animated special inserted). The ultimate cut looks hard to obtain, but you can obtain the director's cut and Tales of the Black Freighter separately,
There's a DVD version of the director's cut for a tenner on Amazon, but it's a region 1 import. It looks that it may be BD only if you wanted a UK version...
The film went through development hell, Zack Snyder was probably the only person willing to touch it, and most certainly the only person willing to do a faithful adaptation of the comic. Warner Bros. wanted a modern day setting and a PG-13 rating (with only the modern day setting negotiable), my understanding is that Snyder had to fight for the R.
Also, is having a unique visual style really a bad thing for a director?
Yes, if it serves no purpose in the telling of the story or development of the characters.
It's a "visual" style of course it has no purpose in storytelling, but it looks nice...
I don't think it does look nice. It comes across as the director saying to the audience "ooooh look at this bullet" or "see what my special effects can do???". It's completely pointless. If anything it distracts from what's going on.
Comments
I still have the image of the
I felt that stylistically some bits felt out of place like the
What's with all the rape references? Seemed a bit unnecessary, but probably just spillover from the comic/graphic novel.
And was Rorschach deliberately doing everything possible to sound like Christian Bale's Batman?
Can you remember if there's anything as gut-wrenching as that inserted? If there isn't I'll be fine, I know when to cover my eyes now...
it looked great - I've never seen a film adhere to the comic in terms of visuals and costumes etc so well. and the casting was near perefect .
but they f'd up the drama , stories were condensed too much , for instance rorshach's back story , he just immediately tells the shrink what happened to him , same with Laurie , Manhattan just does a 'mind-meld' , it's like they're saying 'we haven't got time for all that' .
thing is - I think they did have time , there's a lot of time wasted on music montage scenes and slow-mo fights which go on way too long .
I dunno, I can't really pinpoint a specific thing. Maybe if I tried watching it again I might enjoy it the second time. That has happened before with movies that I haven't enjoyed the first time.
Has Zack Snyder ever made a movie at a constant speed all the way through?
This is what I was going to say. Watchmen could have been a good movie if they hired a proper director. Not some dweeb in love with slowing down the film (literally) every five minutes.
The film went through development hell, Zack Snyder was probably the only person willing to touch it, and most certainly the only person willing to do a faithful adaptation of the comic. Warner Bros. wanted a modern day setting and a PG-13 rating (with only the modern day setting negotiable), my understanding is that Snyder had to fight for the R.
Also, is having a unique visual style really a bad thing for a director?
I think the opening credits were a bit too long, and made the beginning feel a bit baggy...
I don't agree at all. It gave you some history, was rendered well, a great and appropriate song being played, some great visuals, and all the scenes were appropriate to the original comic. They fit in a lot of the history of the group of characters in a few minutes. Time well spent.
It is when he becomes a slave to it. Without the slo-mo Watchmen would have been even better and considerably shorter.
Still a great movie even so.
It's been a few years since i watched it but i do seem to remember there being a few more violent scenes and scenes where the violence was made more graphic when compared to the theatrical cut. Specifically i think that the Comedian's bar fight had a few more gory shots, and the aforementioned meat cleaver scene contained more strikes to the guys head (iirc).
It's a great film though, and the Director's Cut makes it even better with the additional 20-30 minutes of scenes helping it flow better, so i wouldn't let the added violence put you off:)
There's a DVD version of the director's cut for a tenner on Amazon, but it's a region 1 import. It looks that it may be BD only if you wanted a UK version...
Yes, if it serves no purpose in the telling of the story or development of the characters.
It's a "visual" style of course it has no purpose in storytelling, but it looks nice...
I don't think it does look nice. It comes across as the director saying to the audience "ooooh look at this bullet" or "see what my special effects can do???". It's completely pointless. If anything it distracts from what's going on.