|
|||||
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product details
|
Reviews
Amazon.co.uk Review
Everybody's favourite graphic novel comes to the screen (after years of rumours and false starts), less a roaring work of adaptation than a respectful and faithful take on a radical original. Watchmen is set in the mid-1980s, a time of increased nuclear tension between the United States and the Soviet Union, as Richard Nixon is enjoying his fifth term as president and the world's superheroes have been forcibly retired. (As you can probably tell, the mix of authentic history and alternate reality is heady.) Things begin with a bang: the mysterious high-rise murder of the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), a masked hero with a checkered past, puts the rest of the retired superhero community on alert. The credits sequence, a series of tableaux that wittily catches us up on crime-fighting backstory, actually turns out to be the high point of the movie. Thereafter we meet the other caped and hooded avengers: the furious Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), the inexplicably naked Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup, amidst much blue-skinned, genital-swinging digital work), Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman), Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson), and Ozymandias (Matthew Goode). The corkscrewing storytelling, which worked well in the comic book, gives the movie the strange sense of never quite getting in gear, even as some of the episodes are arresting. Director Zack Snyder (300) doesn't try to approximate the electric impact of the original (written by Alan Moore--who declined to be credited on the movie--and illustrated by Dave Gibbons) but retains careful fidelity to his source material. That doesn't feel right, even with the generally enjoyable roll-out of anecdotes. Even less forgivable is the blah acting, excepting Jeffrey Dean Morgan (lusty) and Patrick Wilson (mellow). Watchmen certainly fills the eyes, although less so the ears: the song choices are regrettable, especially during an embarrassing mid-air coupling between Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II as they unite their--ah--Roman numerals. In the end it feels as though a huge work of transcription has been successfully completed, which isn't the same as making a full-blooded movie experience. --Robert Horton
DVD Description
A complex, multi-layered mystery adventure, Watchmen is set in an alternate 1985 America in which costumed superheroes are part of the fabric of everyday society, and the "Doomsday Clock"--which charts the USA's tension with the Soviet Union--moves closer to midnight. When one of his former colleagues is murdered, the washed-up but no less determined masked vigilante Rorschach sets out to uncover a plot to kill and discredit all past and present superheroes. As he reconnects with his former crime-fighting legion--a ragtag group of retired superheroes, only one of whom has true powers--Rorschach glimpses a wide-ranging and disturbing conspiracy with links to their shared past.
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD
I have little to no history with comics so it was very unusual for me to read one. It has the reputation for being the Citizen Kane of comics. So I thought it would be better to read it then it would be to watch a bland, simplified and shortened movie version.
So I bought the graphic novel and I really liked it. Well worth reading. I also agreed with Alan Moore, the creator and a noted hater of Hollywood, that a movie adaption was not needed. The book was complete in and of itself. It was not a blueprint for a future adaption in a different media. It was the definitive version. It was not a comic by default, it was a comic because it was meant to be a comic. A movie version was as needed as a musical version on ice - potentially interesting but pointless.
So I had low expectations when I finally watched the movie version. I initially wanted to get up and walk away from it in "disgust" but I sat it out. After the first half hour I relaxed into it and started to enjoy it. I don't think the first half hour is bad, more that it just took me that long to adjust to the acting style and the over-busy camera work, both of which were not what I was expecting.
I'm very surprised that so much of the book got into the film. Very little of note has been chopped. I would go as far as saying that I missed nothing from the comic. What little didn't make it onto the screen was of no great loss (I disliked the comic within a comic Tales of the Black Freighter and I'm glad it was removed). If you've seen the movie then essentially you've read the comic in its near entirety, which I'm very surprised to say.
If you're looking for an action movie then forget it. This is a talk-a-thon. There are only a few scenes of brief violence, none of which will satisfy anyone looking for large scale action thrills.
I liked the film and it's probably about as good an adaption as they could have made. No major mistakes have been made in my opinion (the contentious casting of the Veidt character didn't bother me). Also not one thing appears to have been invented for the movie, no new characters, new dialogue, new scenes etc. Everything seems to have come directly from the comic. The only alteration of note are the specific details of the climax. That major alteration works well and is perhaps more sensible and logical than the events in the comic book.
I don't think it matters what version you experience, the comic or the film, as they're pretty much the same thing. Neither has a significant edge over the other.
So I bought the graphic novel and I really liked it. Well worth reading. I also agreed with Alan Moore, the creator and a noted hater of Hollywood, that a movie adaption was not needed. The book was complete in and of itself. It was not a blueprint for a future adaption in a different media. It was the definitive version. It was not a comic by default, it was a comic because it was meant to be a comic. A movie version was as needed as a musical version on ice - potentially interesting but pointless.
So I had low expectations when I finally watched the movie version. I initially wanted to get up and walk away from it in "disgust" but I sat it out. After the first half hour I relaxed into it and started to enjoy it. I don't think the first half hour is bad, more that it just took me that long to adjust to the acting style and the over-busy camera work, both of which were not what I was expecting.
I'm very surprised that so much of the book got into the film. Very little of note has been chopped. I would go as far as saying that I missed nothing from the comic. What little didn't make it onto the screen was of no great loss (I disliked the comic within a comic Tales of the Black Freighter and I'm glad it was removed). If you've seen the movie then essentially you've read the comic in its near entirety, which I'm very surprised to say.
If you're looking for an action movie then forget it. This is a talk-a-thon. There are only a few scenes of brief violence, none of which will satisfy anyone looking for large scale action thrills.
I liked the film and it's probably about as good an adaption as they could have made. No major mistakes have been made in my opinion (the contentious casting of the Veidt character didn't bother me). Also not one thing appears to have been invented for the movie, no new characters, new dialogue, new scenes etc. Everything seems to have come directly from the comic. The only alteration of note are the specific details of the climax. That major alteration works well and is perhaps more sensible and logical than the events in the comic book.
I don't think it matters what version you experience, the comic or the film, as they're pretty much the same thing. Neither has a significant edge over the other.
223 of 267 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD
'The Dark Knight' is a fantastic movie.
But if I had to go by how much a movie has affected me? 'Watchmen' wins hands down, for consider: never before has it occurred to me to go to the cinema twice to see the same movie. After seeing it on the Friday of its release, I needed to go back again that Sunday.
When I Read Clive Barker's 'Galilee' some years back I was stunned and amazed... and strangely gutted: I would never have the joy of reading that book again for the first time.
That's how I felt about 'Watchmen' when I first saw it.
It is not like any other superhero movie. Not like any other movie, period. I was amazed they got away with it. How did they get away with it?! For 20 years they tried to bring the original graphic novel source material to the big screen. After so many false starts (remember when Arnie - the now Governor of California - was going to be Dr. Manhattan?!) all anyone had a right to expect was a movie that had nothing much to do with the comic at all. That's why I'm stunned: It's so faithful I cannot help thinking, "How did they get away with it?"
Even if you don't like the movie, you will still think to yourself, "Well I definitely ain't never seen a movie like that before..."
For me 'Watchmen' is more layered than 'The Dark Knight', thus making repeated viewings so enriching.
Sure, 'The Dark Knight' is layered also, but its intentions are transparent, meaning you 'get it' the first time you see it. Its moody cinematography clearly marks it as a serious 'mature' movie.
'Watchmen' is far more subversive:
Here you have a movie which is bright and colourful and - gosh! - doesn't it look fun?! So why does it make some people uncomfortable? Because, on the surface, the movie taunts its audience by appearing to be yet another 'X-Men'.
The visual style of the movie may feel like a comic book, but the brutality of its violence honours the irony of The Comedian character's name: this is all a bad joke - me, you, this world's politicians, this petty thug whose face I'm smashing in, and yet ain't a one of us getting punished by the law for beating someone up cos we're wearing stupid costumes and that makes it all right.
Whereas every other Superhero Movie - including 'The Dark Knight' - celebrates the genre, 'Watchmen' gleefully deconstructs it. And it doesn't need shadow and smoke and dim lighting in order to do so.
On the surface everything is there for yet another formulaic Superhero Movie. After all, it looks the part...
... but this is where the genius of Watchmen's subversion comes in, for although the movie can be enjoyed on purely a visual visceral level, woven through its stock superhero tropes you have tales of rape, cancer and impotency -
- you even have one of the 'Good Guys' assassinating John F. Kennedy in the opening credits.
Compared to that 'The Dark Knight' seems positively pedestrian.
Even the movie's flaws (with the exception of President Nixon's large prosthetic nose) unintentionally work in its favour by holding up a spotlight to its own absurdity of grown men and women dressing up in Hallowe'en costumes.
One purpose of the movie's frequent slow-motion motif that I immediately noticed is that is gives the character Rorschach and Dr Manhattan's voice-overs room to breathe, whilst at the same time lending the movie its comic book look; and yet deliberately confounds your expectations by not being a comic superhero movie.
It's as if The Comedian (a thinly disguised 'Captain America') directed this movie -
A female protestor gets punched in the face without hesitation... by one of the 'Good Guys'. A pregnant woman gets shot at point-blank range... by one of the 'Good Guys'.
It you were to take The Dark Knight's premise of a 'gritty' superhero-movie-for-adults to its logical next level then 'Watchmen' would be the result. Be careful what you ask for because you just got it.
And you thought 'The Phantom Menace' 'raped your childhood'. You'll never look at 'Iron Man' and 'Spider-Man' the same way again.
The Nite Owl character (a thinly disguised 'Batman') is so hung up he becomes impotent the first time he's with Silk Spectre (a thinly disguised 'Wonder Woman'). And yet later - after cracking some heads - ? No problem. That's what makes the 'love scene' in the Nite Owl's airship so hilarious and appropriate: these people get off on beating up some poor schmucks in order that they can become 'whole' and connect. Even this is made blatant by the way the characters grin and mug at each other after fighting the Bad Guys: they're turned on by the violence they're dishing out and they're not ashamed to admit it. The song choice for that love scene?! "Hallelujah" right enough!! LOL!!! That's some serious screwed up Freudian stuff right there...
The Comedian is definitely behind the lens of this movie, chomping on his cigar.
Critics point to the lack of experience in the unknown actress who plays Silk Spectre. Yet, unintentionally, that works in the character's favour: she has an out-of-her-depth naivety, only 'coming alive' when fighting the 'Bad Guys'. Dr Manhattan (a thinly disguised 'Superman') shows the viewer logically what would happen if someone really was superhuman: a guy so powerful that his intelligence has caused him to lose his ability to relate to his fellow man.
"God help us all," right enough as The Comedian says upon noticing this.
And the coup de grace of unintentional flaws which work in the movie's favour? The Osymandias superhero character who ultimately 'saves the world' is flat, bland and totally uninteresting.
Just like they say: bad guys are so much more interesting to play. And this movie makes its 'Good Guys' so flawed that you can't tell them from the 'Bad Guys'.
As to the graphic violence -
As much as I love horror fiction I detest horror movies: they're nothing more than torture-porn.
At the same time, however, I believe the director Jack Snyder is deliberately shaming the audience into guilt because of its lust for violence. Watchmen's violence is not meant to be realistic - the slo-mo effect makes sure of that, whilst simultaneously glorying in it because, hey, that's what you want, right? The Good Guys and The Bad Guys duelling it out? Sure you do, that's what Superhero Movies are all about. You like to hear the crack of bones breaking? Okay. We'll show you it too. We'll show you it in such a way that you feel it, with slo-mo effect to rub your nose in it. After all, that's what you want.
But why do this?
A one point The Comedian character gets punched repeatedly in the face by a fellow 'Good Guy' superhero, until he falls to his knees.
With burst lip and bloody nose The Comedian looks up, grins, and says, "This is what you like, huh? This is what gets you hot?"
The movie is taunting its audience, The Comedian looking into camera and speaking directly to them: you like punch-ups in Superhero Movies, don'tcha? So, we're giving it to ya, whatcha complaining about?
The violence is more graphic than it needs to be in order to make its audience uncomfortable, and thereby shame it.
Remember, 'Watchmen' is an anti-Superhero Movie.
'Watchmen' doesn't 'update' the Superhero Movie so much as crush it beneath its heel.
Welcome to the world of post-'Dark Knight'.
But if I had to go by how much a movie has affected me? 'Watchmen' wins hands down, for consider: never before has it occurred to me to go to the cinema twice to see the same movie. After seeing it on the Friday of its release, I needed to go back again that Sunday.
When I Read Clive Barker's 'Galilee' some years back I was stunned and amazed... and strangely gutted: I would never have the joy of reading that book again for the first time.
That's how I felt about 'Watchmen' when I first saw it.
It is not like any other superhero movie. Not like any other movie, period. I was amazed they got away with it. How did they get away with it?! For 20 years they tried to bring the original graphic novel source material to the big screen. After so many false starts (remember when Arnie - the now Governor of California - was going to be Dr. Manhattan?!) all anyone had a right to expect was a movie that had nothing much to do with the comic at all. That's why I'm stunned: It's so faithful I cannot help thinking, "How did they get away with it?"
Even if you don't like the movie, you will still think to yourself, "Well I definitely ain't never seen a movie like that before..."
For me 'Watchmen' is more layered than 'The Dark Knight', thus making repeated viewings so enriching.
Sure, 'The Dark Knight' is layered also, but its intentions are transparent, meaning you 'get it' the first time you see it. Its moody cinematography clearly marks it as a serious 'mature' movie.
'Watchmen' is far more subversive:
Here you have a movie which is bright and colourful and - gosh! - doesn't it look fun?! So why does it make some people uncomfortable? Because, on the surface, the movie taunts its audience by appearing to be yet another 'X-Men'.
The visual style of the movie may feel like a comic book, but the brutality of its violence honours the irony of The Comedian character's name: this is all a bad joke - me, you, this world's politicians, this petty thug whose face I'm smashing in, and yet ain't a one of us getting punished by the law for beating someone up cos we're wearing stupid costumes and that makes it all right.
Whereas every other Superhero Movie - including 'The Dark Knight' - celebrates the genre, 'Watchmen' gleefully deconstructs it. And it doesn't need shadow and smoke and dim lighting in order to do so.
On the surface everything is there for yet another formulaic Superhero Movie. After all, it looks the part...
... but this is where the genius of Watchmen's subversion comes in, for although the movie can be enjoyed on purely a visual visceral level, woven through its stock superhero tropes you have tales of rape, cancer and impotency -
- you even have one of the 'Good Guys' assassinating John F. Kennedy in the opening credits.
Compared to that 'The Dark Knight' seems positively pedestrian.
Even the movie's flaws (with the exception of President Nixon's large prosthetic nose) unintentionally work in its favour by holding up a spotlight to its own absurdity of grown men and women dressing up in Hallowe'en costumes.
One purpose of the movie's frequent slow-motion motif that I immediately noticed is that is gives the character Rorschach and Dr Manhattan's voice-overs room to breathe, whilst at the same time lending the movie its comic book look; and yet deliberately confounds your expectations by not being a comic superhero movie.
It's as if The Comedian (a thinly disguised 'Captain America') directed this movie -
A female protestor gets punched in the face without hesitation... by one of the 'Good Guys'. A pregnant woman gets shot at point-blank range... by one of the 'Good Guys'.
It you were to take The Dark Knight's premise of a 'gritty' superhero-movie-for-adults to its logical next level then 'Watchmen' would be the result. Be careful what you ask for because you just got it.
And you thought 'The Phantom Menace' 'raped your childhood'. You'll never look at 'Iron Man' and 'Spider-Man' the same way again.
The Nite Owl character (a thinly disguised 'Batman') is so hung up he becomes impotent the first time he's with Silk Spectre (a thinly disguised 'Wonder Woman'). And yet later - after cracking some heads - ? No problem. That's what makes the 'love scene' in the Nite Owl's airship so hilarious and appropriate: these people get off on beating up some poor schmucks in order that they can become 'whole' and connect. Even this is made blatant by the way the characters grin and mug at each other after fighting the Bad Guys: they're turned on by the violence they're dishing out and they're not ashamed to admit it. The song choice for that love scene?! "Hallelujah" right enough!! LOL!!! That's some serious screwed up Freudian stuff right there...
The Comedian is definitely behind the lens of this movie, chomping on his cigar.
Critics point to the lack of experience in the unknown actress who plays Silk Spectre. Yet, unintentionally, that works in the character's favour: she has an out-of-her-depth naivety, only 'coming alive' when fighting the 'Bad Guys'. Dr Manhattan (a thinly disguised 'Superman') shows the viewer logically what would happen if someone really was superhuman: a guy so powerful that his intelligence has caused him to lose his ability to relate to his fellow man.
"God help us all," right enough as The Comedian says upon noticing this.
And the coup de grace of unintentional flaws which work in the movie's favour? The Osymandias superhero character who ultimately 'saves the world' is flat, bland and totally uninteresting.
Just like they say: bad guys are so much more interesting to play. And this movie makes its 'Good Guys' so flawed that you can't tell them from the 'Bad Guys'.
As to the graphic violence -
As much as I love horror fiction I detest horror movies: they're nothing more than torture-porn.
At the same time, however, I believe the director Jack Snyder is deliberately shaming the audience into guilt because of its lust for violence. Watchmen's violence is not meant to be realistic - the slo-mo effect makes sure of that, whilst simultaneously glorying in it because, hey, that's what you want, right? The Good Guys and The Bad Guys duelling it out? Sure you do, that's what Superhero Movies are all about. You like to hear the crack of bones breaking? Okay. We'll show you it too. We'll show you it in such a way that you feel it, with slo-mo effect to rub your nose in it. After all, that's what you want.
But why do this?
A one point The Comedian character gets punched repeatedly in the face by a fellow 'Good Guy' superhero, until he falls to his knees.
With burst lip and bloody nose The Comedian looks up, grins, and says, "This is what you like, huh? This is what gets you hot?"
The movie is taunting its audience, The Comedian looking into camera and speaking directly to them: you like punch-ups in Superhero Movies, don'tcha? So, we're giving it to ya, whatcha complaining about?
The violence is more graphic than it needs to be in order to make its audience uncomfortable, and thereby shame it.
Remember, 'Watchmen' is an anti-Superhero Movie.
'Watchmen' doesn't 'update' the Superhero Movie so much as crush it beneath its heel.
Welcome to the world of post-'Dark Knight'.
20 of 24 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD
The mundanes are upset because they were expecting dudes in capes flying around and saving the day. They just "don't get it". The fan boys are upset because Zack Snyder changed "their" original ending and wasn't 210% faithful to the original story.
What did you expect people? WATCHMEN is a wonderfuly complex and quirky story about not so everyday superhero folk that at first glance seemed almost impossible to turn into a film. However, Mr Snyder has acheived the impossible and given us a motion picture that looks, feels, smells and tastes 99.8% like the orginal 12 comics and people are still complaining.
Yes, there are changes to the story. The most notable being the complete doing away with the "squid" ending. However, most of these changes are very minor and in the case of the "squid" ending Snyder has substituted an end to the story that manages to be more crowd pleasing and actually better than the original.
After all is said and done WATCHMEN is a superbly realised motion picture with few flaws and is probably as close as we'll ever get (outside of a very long tv miniseries) to a good live action adaptation of Alan Moore's ground breaking story. It's essentialy an art-house film that managed to get major Hollywood studio backing. It was never going to be a box office smash (as I predicted from day one) but I really don't care about that. This is one just for we scifi/comic book nerds and I for one am eternally grateful to Zack Snyder for doing such a wonderful job.
That said, I'd recomend this film to anyone. If you've got an open mind I'm sure you'll enjoy it. If not... well, I can't help or force you to like it but you may want to read the graphic novel as a primer before the movie.
What did you expect people? WATCHMEN is a wonderfuly complex and quirky story about not so everyday superhero folk that at first glance seemed almost impossible to turn into a film. However, Mr Snyder has acheived the impossible and given us a motion picture that looks, feels, smells and tastes 99.8% like the orginal 12 comics and people are still complaining.
Yes, there are changes to the story. The most notable being the complete doing away with the "squid" ending. However, most of these changes are very minor and in the case of the "squid" ending Snyder has substituted an end to the story that manages to be more crowd pleasing and actually better than the original.
After all is said and done WATCHMEN is a superbly realised motion picture with few flaws and is probably as close as we'll ever get (outside of a very long tv miniseries) to a good live action adaptation of Alan Moore's ground breaking story. It's essentialy an art-house film that managed to get major Hollywood studio backing. It was never going to be a box office smash (as I predicted from day one) but I really don't care about that. This is one just for we scifi/comic book nerds and I for one am eternally grateful to Zack Snyder for doing such a wonderful job.
That said, I'd recomend this film to anyone. If you've got an open mind I'm sure you'll enjoy it. If not... well, I can't help or force you to like it but you may want to read the graphic novel as a primer before the movie.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
"..UNIQUE COMIC BOOK BASED MOVIE.."
This has got to be one of the best comic book movies ever made, watchmen easily stands up to anything before it, it has an amazing and deep and interesting storyline unlike alot of... Read more
Published 1 month ago by S. Drury
Is the 'Director's Cut' worth it?
Let me state right away that I had never read the graphic novel (still haven't) before I saw the movie adaptation, and despite some critics saying the film was too complex for a... Read more
Published 3 months ago by Northern Star
Ace!!
In my opinion this is my favourate film based on a graphic novel (well, equal to V for Vendetta) Love it!
Published 4 months ago by Baz P
Great film and fantastic book
Perhaps reading Watchmen, the graphic novel, before watching the film is a mistake judging from the reviews here - I can imagine that it's hard to match such expectation (or... Read more
Published 5 months ago by commodityfetish
Great film - from someone who has never read the book
It's always interesting to see a film of a book you have read, because usually the film never matches up. Read more
Published 5 months ago by Martyn K. Postle
I watches the Watchmen
I think my own personal yardstick on a movie is if I can watch it more than once. When I first watched "Watchmen" I hadn't read the comicbook, and on a first viewing I felt like I... Read more
Published 5 months ago by Guru Saj
Brilliant!
Having read the graphic novel I would say this was really well made, very true to the source material (word for word at times). Read more
Published 6 months ago by L
Not at all what I expected
First of all, I have never read a Watchmen comic... although to be honest that shouldn't be an issue.
I don't have so much to say about this film if I'm honest. Read more
I don't have so much to say about this film if I'm honest. Read more
Published 6 months ago by Mrs. L. Gaughan
Watchmen
The political and megalomaniac themes still so relevant today. I enjoyed how all the back stories were explained and that the good guy/bad guy line was hazy. Read more
Published 6 months ago by Sam
Don't Watchmen
First of all, can't complain with the seller or the speed of the delivery, it was impressive
HOWEVER, the movie itself was a huge let down, close to three hours of my... Read more
HOWEVER, the movie itself was a huge let down, close to three hours of my... Read more
Published 8 months ago by Timatron
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/02/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192198663_.gif){kind=small}
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
