Just came back from watching it. Good movie, but I also understand why Alan Moore considers it to be "unflimable". To me, Watchmen is a story
that's best enjoyed at your own pace, where you could breeze through or meditate on the images as long as you please, or go back and forth as one panel
recalls a previous panel. Here I felt like I was more being "pushed" through the story at someone else's pace, and I don't know if
that's the best way to tell "Watchmen."I wondered if anyone who never read the graphic novel could really follow everything that was going on in
the begining, All the stuff with the old Minutemen of the 40s, the Watchmen (really, the Crime Stoppers) of the 60s, and the storyline in the 80s, I thought it
may have been a little to quick for first timers.
Good, spoiler free points about the film: They did manage to efficiently tell the story without cutting too much of the flesh, which is what I was afraid
would happen. Generally the acting was really great and everyone really fit their roles. I particularly liked Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach, Jeffrey Dean
Morgan as the Comedian, and Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl/Dan Dreiberg, who were pretty much exactly as I would imagine them in film. The new ending was not so
bad, but I thought that the imagery from the original one was more powerful and striking. And overall, it really does manage to get a lot right in terms of
adapting the characters and story.
A good movie, about as true and accurate a Watchmen movie as you can make (with of course the exception of the new ending), but I don't think film is
really the best medium to tell the story. This movie's probably a 6.5, the graphic novel's a 10.
--YJK, AKA Arnold Kim
---------------------------
Watch my brand new video blogs at my Youtube channel!
"Kanrinin-SAAAN!" - Yusaku Godai
Avatar- Lum Invader, courtesy of this fan made Youtube video
My Anime List:
http://myanimelist.net/profile/ArnoldK
that's best enjoyed at your own pace, where you could breeze through or meditate on the images as long as you please, or go back and forth as one panel
recalls a previous panel. Here I felt like I was more being "pushed" through the story at someone else's pace, and I don't know if
that's the best way to tell "Watchmen."I wondered if anyone who never read the graphic novel could really follow everything that was going on in
the begining, All the stuff with the old Minutemen of the 40s, the Watchmen (really, the Crime Stoppers) of the 60s, and the storyline in the 80s, I thought it
may have been a little to quick for first timers.
Good, spoiler free points about the film: They did manage to efficiently tell the story without cutting too much of the flesh, which is what I was afraid
would happen. Generally the acting was really great and everyone really fit their roles. I particularly liked Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach, Jeffrey Dean
Morgan as the Comedian, and Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl/Dan Dreiberg, who were pretty much exactly as I would imagine them in film. The new ending was not so
bad, but I thought that the imagery from the original one was more powerful and striking. And overall, it really does manage to get a lot right in terms of
adapting the characters and story.
A good movie, about as true and accurate a Watchmen movie as you can make (with of course the exception of the new ending), but I don't think film is
really the best medium to tell the story. This movie's probably a 6.5, the graphic novel's a 10.
--YJK, AKA Arnold Kim
---------------------------
Watch my brand new video blogs at my Youtube channel!
"Kanrinin-SAAAN!" - Yusaku Godai
Avatar- Lum Invader, courtesy of this fan made Youtube video
My Anime List:
http://myanimelist.net/profile/ArnoldK