On A Completely Unrelated Note To Football..."Watchmen" Sucked

by UCrawford on Mar 6, 2009 11:57 PM CST Comment 31 comments

["Zack Snyder stuck me in a crappy film"]

So I finally went to see "Watchmen" tonight, and since some of the guys here last night asked me to give my opinion on it I've got this to say about going to see it.

Don't.

If you haven't already read the deservedly acclaimed graphic novel (one of my all-time favorite books in any genre) by legendary author Alan Moore and illustrator Dave Gibbons, you probably shouldn't even consider going to see this two hour, forty-three minute debacle because a) you will have a tough time figuring out what's going on, b) you probably won't care about too many of the characters in the film (because they don't have enough time to properly develop the characters), and c) Zack Snyder might be a hell of a guy with visuals but he couldn't direct an actor on how to take a piss with credibility much less get them to say lines lifted directly from a comic book with any sort of emotional honesty.

Seriously, if you've ever wondered why until recently Hollywood tried to avoid comic book movies like the plague, then go see this movie just to see how ridiculous comic book dialogue sounds when it's lifted directly from the page and crapped out of some actor's mouth word-for-word without any attempt by the screenwriter to tailor it to a film. Computer-generated-imagery has been the primary reason for the plethora of superhero movies over the last decade because the dialogue from comic books sounds absolutely ridiculous and shallow when it's being spoken by real live actors (and the plots aren't much better). But even the CGI can't save a superhero movie when the director refuses to make any concessions to the limitations of the film medium (more on that in a second).

There were a few things about the movie that I enjoyed. The good points: As far as acting Jackie Earle Haley did an excellent job as Rorschach (his scenes were the high points of the movie), Billy Crudup was amazingly compelling underplaying the detached and alienated Dr. Manhattan (despite his director having absolutely no clue how to utilize Manhattan's speeches effectively) and Jeffrey Dean Morgan was engaging as The Comedian (despite having far too little screen time). And the CGI was top-notch...probably deserves an Oscar nomination in some of the technical categories next year.

The bad points: Everything else. Especially Carla Gugino and Malin Akerman (Silk Spectre I and II), who might very well be the worst pair of actresses I've ever seen star in a major film. Either that or Zack Snyder hasn't got a clue of how to direct women...which may be more the culprit. The female characters in "300" were cheesy and shallow eye candy and the female characters in "Watchmen" were cheesy and shallow eye candy. Gugino and Akerman had the worst lines and they might as well have been reading them for the first time with script in hand for all the emotional credibility they put into what they were saying. Whatever the case, I'm at least glad that Akerman looks good naked because she didn't do anything else in that movie that I found remotely interesting and she strikes me as the kind of actress whose future is in direct-to-DVD knockoffs of good films, likely co-starring with Lorenzo Llamas. Let's just say that Akerman shouldn't be expecting to go to the Oscars as anything other than a spectator.

Final assessment: This film should never have been made. It's impossible to cram Moore's work into a three hour film...especially "Watchmen". The storyline was too complex, everything in the book was essential to the main plot (and the main plot wasn't even the most important part of the book...the sub-plots and secondary characters were) so any cuts irreparably damaged the story, and you simply can't flesh out a large cast of complex characters enough in a three hour film to get anyone to care about them while still moving the film along. It's just impossible...that's always been the limitation of film (which is why Moore has always argued against transferring his work into movies). An HBO-style miniseries (where there's very little network censorship) might have been able to pull it off...given 10 hours this film could probably be made compelling. In fact, "Watchmen" could probably be adapted to a five or six season long television series (it would have to be on Showtime or HBO) following the full history of the "Watchmen" universe and given some capable writing it would be held up in the same rarified air as "The Sopranos".

But breaking down that book into a three hour film? Not even the omnipotent Dr. Manhattan could pull that off.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.

0 recs | Comment 31 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Umm,..yea Ucrawford

I could have told you that from the trailers

by HOF4DT58 on Mar 7, 2009 12:04 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I Was Willing To Give It A Shot

But man, was that movie horrible. I even went in with low expectations because I figured it would struggle because of the time limits (which can’t be helped) but that was just a horrible effort. Zack Snyder is a truly rotten director. He’s even worse than Michael Bay (who at least made the enjoyable, if shallow, "Transformers"). Snyder’s done two movies I can’t stand and both of them have been plagued by enough bad acting to make me think he hasn’t got a clue how to get good performances out of his actors unless those actors are talented enough figure it out for themselves without his help.

Predictions for 2009

1. Todd Haley's going to struggle with managing his staff in his rookie year as head coach.
2. The Lions will draft Matt Stafford, the Rams will draft Jason Smith, and the Chiefs will draft either Aaron Curry or Eugene Monroe.

by UCrawford on Mar 7, 2009 12:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Read it, Loved it. Have no intention of going to see the film.

I’ve always known your posts to be straight shooting and educated, so I’ll take you at your word about the film.
Having said that, I’m going to have to argue with you about “Transformers” being entertaining.

Plot of Transformers:
1) Some robots show up and freak out some kid.
2) Robots tell kid about some secret “cube” that is “powerful” and “dangerous in wrong hands”
3) Evil robots show up / thaw out and go after the cube.
4) The cube is moved from a remote military facility to THE MIDDLE OF A HEAVILY POPULATED CITY in order to protect the humans.
5) Big fights and lots of CGI happens.
6) the “cube” is destroyed.

shallow doesn’t even begin to explain it.
Toss in as many shots of a hot girl’s ass/cleavage as she bends/crouches/leans over every conceivable set piece as you can stuff into the movie; and make sure that GM gets their sponcership dollars worth by showcasing their entire years now car model lineups for at least 25% of total viewable screen time.

The End.

I left the theater wondering of the movie was simply made to be jack off material for the GM Motor companies R&D department.

The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw

by Texas Chief on Mar 7, 2009 2:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What did you think transformers was going to be.

Was it a movie that was supposed to change the way movies are seen? No, it was a movie that was supposed to entertain you for around 2 hours. Not all movies are supposed to be great thought invoking movies. I would argue that most are just supposed to be watched and that’s it. Just wondering what you would consider a entertaining action movie.

I am currently reading the Watchmen and I will go see it after I’m through. Not to compare them but to take time out of my stressful life to enjoy 3 hours of entertainment for relief. I am probably in the minority here but I wold rather have two hours of fast paced action then 2 hours of dull build up that is supposed to make a point.

by TXroyal on Mar 7, 2009 2:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why do entertaining movies have to be stupid?

The Transformers movie is just idiotic. The visual effects are first rate but the rest of the movie is completely and utterly horrible. The reason Dark Knight made so much money last year is the public is hungry for mainstream entertainment that is smart, well crafted and well acted and doesn’t insult their intelligence.

Toby is in HR, which technically means he works for corporate, so he's really not a part of our family. Also, he's divorced, so he's really not a part of his family.

by Rev. Slappy on Mar 7, 2009 3:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The only reason The Dark Night was any good was because of

the Joker. I personally didn’t think it was worth all the press it got. It got more press then usual bc of Heath Ledgers death, which was a sad loss bc he was good at what he did and seemed to love it. Transformers is a different kind of movie entirely. Its big selling points are the giant robots and they are not actors exactly.

I liked both movies and I will probably like Watchmen bc what they mainly do for me is let me forget about the world outside the theater and just enjoy my time their. The only kind of movies I do not like are girly movies unless my gf is with me. Heck I even like movies like Shrek and the Mr Bean series bc they are entertaining not thought provoking.

by TXroyal on Mar 7, 2009 4:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I Thought "Dark Knight" Was A Fine Film, Although

The stuff they did with Batman’s voice didn’t do it any favors. They modulated it to the point where it was really ridiculous and almost unintelligible and it distracted from the character. And some of the dialogue got really hammy (particularly the final scene), but I thoroughly enjoyed the film overall. Ledger in particular.

Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Mar 7, 2009 9:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Entertaining movies can and should be thought provoking.

There’s no need for us to check our brains at the door to enjoy a good piece of mainstream entertainment. I think the movie industry has sort of devolved into that mindset, that in order for a movie to be a mass entertainment then it also has to be really really stupid.

Transformers doesn’t have to be Citizen Kane, but it could have been Jurassic Park. It was stupid because the director is an idiot.

Toby is in HR, which technically means he works for corporate, so he's really not a part of our family. Also, he's divorced, so he's really not a part of his family.

by Rev. Slappy on Mar 7, 2009 12:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't Get Me Wrong

I’ve hated every other movie Michael Bay has done. He’s a product-placement whore and all of his films are the same. All I’m saying is that “Transformers” was enjoyable if you don’t expect anything out of it. Mindless entertainment. I’d give it two stars.

Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Mar 8, 2009 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I Agree About Intelligent Film Being A Big Draw

Problem I had with “Watchmen” was that it wasn’t an intelligent film. It was essentially a recitation from the comic book. And if I’m going to watch that, I’d rather watch the motion comic they did of “Watchmen” on iTunes. It was better anyway.

To be honest, I think Alan Moore’s work is never going to be a fit for the big screen…at least not in the way he originally intended it. “V for Vendetta” came closest and the only way they could pull it off was by dumbing it down into a straight action flick and changing the points Moore was trying to get across. The problem is that movies are too linear and you have to get the story done in three hours and Moore’s work isn’t meant to be linear (he does that intentionally). It could probably work as a series or miniseries (I think Ron Moore, who does “Battlestar Galactica” could pull it off) but not as a film.

Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Mar 7, 2009 9:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I would expect a fully developed plot, decent acting, and a story line that actually makes sense.

I’d settle for any plot that is more complex than I could write on a post-it note, any amount of intrigue or mystery, and any character development. I don’t expect every character to be fully backgrounded fleshed and developed, but it would be nice if ONE of the movies characters are.

I swear the script was for this movie was written on a stack of 10 index cards. 1 for each actor. There was no plot what-so-ever yet alone a developed one. There was no intrigue at all. It’s not enough to say: “This is the good guy, this is the bad guy, this is the end goal of the bad guy,” and then show me 55 minutes of CGI and explosions.

Just as an example of a good action movie imo take “The Matrix” - ONLY the first movie.
Good character development for Neo and Morpheus. A non-linear story line. Things jumped around a bit as you tried to figure out what the hell was going on for the first 45 minutes of the movie. A nice job of winding intrigue throughout the story. A story that turned you on your ear as you slowly come to the realization that the world is not really the world. All of that stuff was simply plot and character development. It all led up to intorducing “the machines” and more specifically “the agents” as the forefront bad guy, while clouding hiding and slowly revealing the real bad guys.

The movie took you through twists of plot, development of a complex world, and you felt like you were discovering just what was really going at the same time Neo was doing the same. The story left you perplexed, wondering, confused, drew you to multiple possible conclusions, and held you on the edge of your seat as the plot continued down a turning and twisting road. It was complex enough that the second and third times you watched the movie you picked up on things you just could not have keyed in on the first time (early in the movie Neo being called “coppertop” by the crew of the Nebekanizer). You could not have known the reference to a battery until you had discovered the “truth” of the plot.
The story was complex, well thought out, and mysterious.
Now add to that some incredible CGI, and absolutely new groundbreaking filming tecniques. (Bullet time and the rotating use of 20-40 cameras arranged in a circular pattern to allow a spinning shot where time could be slowed, stopped, or reversed WHILE the camera angle continued to change or spin around the focal point).
The movie combined story, intrigue and mystery, and kick ass action into an absolutely great film (it’s a shame the next 2 movies appeared to be tossed together without nearly the effort).

You can make a special effects filled action movie with a good plot, character and story development, and film it in a way that has never been done before. The action went from underworld computer fraud to office chase scenes by an unknown enemy to the wonderment of discovering the truth in mirror melting fashion to a reintorduction of the world to old world fist fighting in a dojo to running for your life from the enemy to confronting the sub-bad guy in guns-a-blazing fashion to chase and fight scenes coupled with the hero finally comming into his own.

Along with all that they managed to toss in a basic love story, some detective story elements, and a Judas character.

It doesn’t have to be just idiotic cookie cutter characters, bad acting, no character development, and one of the characters “talking” to lay out the plot to the main character as if spoon feeding a baby. It is possible to make an action movie that is so well concieved, executed, and written that you leave the theater in complete awe of what you just watched.

Transformers doesn’t even come close. It was a miss on every level.
Of course, that’s just my opinon.

The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw

by Texas Chief on Mar 7, 2009 11:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I Didn't Say "Transformers" Was Good

Just that it was enjoyable. Shallow movies can be enjoyable. I wouldn’t buy it, but if I’m flipping channels and it’s on HBO I’ll usually stop and watch it. Overall, Michael Bay is a crap director, in my opinion…but Snyder is so much worse.

Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Mar 7, 2009 9:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and thanks for the heads up

by HOF4DT58 on Mar 7, 2009 12:05 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

UC

This was without a doubt, the single best piece of straight shooting shit talk I have ever read. You really should find a job where you are paid handsomely to do this kind of thing. Lol!

Vae Victis!

by Buck'O on Mar 7, 2009 12:05 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

It Broke My Heart

Because I loved the graphic novel. I’ve probably read it a hundred times.

If you want to see Watchmen in a good movie-like format, download the motion comic off of iTunes. But the film itself should be burned.

Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Mar 7, 2009 12:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That pretty much sucks

because I was looking forward to this one. I think I’ll wait for heavy rotation on Starz now, thank you very much.

Vae Victis!

by Buck'O on Mar 7, 2009 12:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm Betting Its Earnings Plummet After The First Week

Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Mar 7, 2009 12:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

It must have been really bad. Seems like it offended you pretty seriously. Sounds like it might be destined for a short stint on the big screen. I suppose I’m not completely surprised though. The trailer looked pretty amazing, but after biggies like Iron Man, Dark Knight and the Spider Man movies, they were bound to reach. That blows.

Vae Victis!

by Buck'O on Mar 7, 2009 12:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Offended Is The Right Word

I realize that Zack Snyder tried to make the film true to the source material, and I can appreciate that he respects the book and probably genuinely cares for the work. But my god, he did such a crappy job and there’s no way he shouldn’t have seen just how bad this film was. I mean, it was flat out awful…the script was awful, much of the acting was awful, and most of the changes in the main plot were awful (especially the change they made to Rorschach’s origin story, which was absolutely unnecessary).

Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Mar 7, 2009 12:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Iron Man And Spider Man

Are characters that can be adapted to the big screen because you’re really only dealing with one or two main characters (the hero and the villian) so you’ve got time to flesh them out. “Watchmen” is an ensemble piece where you’ve got at least seven main characters to flesh out and there’s simply no time to do it in three hours…at least not the point where the audience can care about the characters and the story gets told.

Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Mar 7, 2009 12:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Haven't seen Watchmen yet. But....

I am a KC native transplanted to LA (actor and screenwriter here). I was supposed to see Watchmen at a press screening on Wednesday but they overbooked it. The Owlship is parked outside the AMC at Universal City, so that’s pretty cool. The people I’ve heard come out of it so far have been pretty positive and most of them have read the book.

Toby is in HR, which technically means he works for corporate, so he's really not a part of our family. Also, he's divorced, so he's really not a part of his family.

by Rev. Slappy on Mar 7, 2009 3:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

When You See It

Tell me what you think about how they wrote it. I’m really curious to hear what someone who does screenwriting professionally thinks about it.

Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Mar 7, 2009 9:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You sir....are a dork...

I won’t see it….both because of your review and because of lack of funds…

by woodman212 on Mar 7, 2009 12:32 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I Proudly Admit I Am A "Watchmen" Fan...Bordering On Fanboy

But that’s only because I’m extremely discerning in my tastes and the comic was an absolutely brilliant piece of work. One of the best stories I’ve ever read (and I read a lot).

Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Mar 7, 2009 12:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I know I am way late on this movie

but if you want action, has anyone seen “Shot Em Up” with Clive Owen and Paul Giamatti?

"But what do I know, I'm AP's new assclown and I’m like an empty room with a large ECHO"

by Lanier63 on Mar 7, 2009 10:37 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

God I Hope your being facetious

that movie was laughable from beginning to , well I never did see the end but it couldn’t have sucked for a half hour and all of a sudden gotten could.

And isn’t everyone a little fed up with superheros, their NBC, ABC, CBS, and in every third movie that comes out. What happened to action flicks with semi plausible story lines like Die Hard or Dirty Harry.

by turdfergusson on Mar 7, 2009 11:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

To me Shoot Em Up was boarder line terrible….Alot of action but very little else…not one of Clives better ones imo…

I thought that Transformers could have been better but it was still a cool movie…I think that GM should have taken a back seat on getting thier cars “headlined” throughout the movie…I understand the sponsorship but c’mon

Have not seen Watchmen…it got good reviews in the Star…

by KCchief5555 on Mar 7, 2009 11:23 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Thanks UC

I was about to see it tonight. I’ve been hearing a lot of bad reviews about it, but now that YOUR judgmental ass says it’s bad too, then that just pushes my doubt over the top… You are definitely useful. Thanks! :)

I know that you're afraid... you're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin.
'09, a new era begins in Kansas City.

by ROC 27 on Mar 7, 2009 11:53 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

My Opinion

I have read the graphic novel and loved it, but I also thought the movie was great. I didn’t go into it expecting every part of the novel to make it to the big screen because I’d still be sitting in a theater watching it. I have heard talk that there will be a special edition that will include much more. I could tell that there were definitely some major parts filmed that had to be cut out for time. 2 hours and 43 minutes is where it stands on the big screen with many omissions. He could have included everything and made a 4+ hour long movie but I doubt anyone but hardcore Watchmen fans would bother sitting through a Comic book movie of Titanic length.

As far as people who haven’t read the novel having troubles? Many of my friends haven’t read it and had absolutely no problems with the plot. I have yet to hear anyone who has watched and couldn’t follow it.

BUT…thats just me.

by NewRegime on Mar 7, 2009 12:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Ive never read the book

nor seen the movie but if it NEEDS to be longer in order to get a point across why dont/didnt they just put it into a two or three part movie???? Kinda like The Godfather..

by KCchief5555 on Mar 7, 2009 12:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

That Might Have Worked Too

But it took 20 years just to get this film made because of all the problems with filming rights so there’s no way a studio was going to invest in three huge films. Plus, Snyder just wanted to make the one film.

Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Mar 8, 2009 10:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs