Watchmen. Went to see it for the second time tonight. As a fan of the comic, I honestly loved it, despite some of the liberties taken with it. It also, in my opinion, got better with a second viewing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Marshmallow
Watchmen
However, its not perfect as there are some flaws some minor some major. One is the annoying repetitious use of the fear of nuclear war since this movie takes place when the US feared Soviet invasion.
I understand that's part of the story's plot and where the movie is supposed to take place, but I got tired of hearing nuclear war over and over again and was more concerned watching the characters and everything ELSE to keep worrying about nukes.
|
Agreed. The reminder that this was the Cold War and they had to constantly talk about nuclear war was somewhat grating, though at the same time clear while they did it. For the most part, I agree: they could have had the characters only really mention it that much closer to the beginning and then regulated it only to the scenes with Nixon in his war room.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr.Marshmallow
Its a minor not really necessarily well founded complaint but the big one I have is with the ending....I just don't like it.
As intelligent as it is and well crafted, I don't like it and I think maybe if one or two things had been changed it would have been much better but as it stands: it sends a mixed message, mixing valid points with unsatisfied ones.
|
This I disagree with, but I know a lot of this is simply because I'm familiar with the source material and was expecting the ending I got. It's easy to see how someone unfamiliar with the source material would be unhappy with how everything ends. Though, I have to admit, I'm curious at what point it is you considered the ending and which points you felt were valid and which were invalid, not out of any intent to seem patronizing, but because the story was intended in general to start discussion over the point.
Spoiler Below I'd assume you count the ending as the confrontation with Veidt in Karnak. To be honest, they made Veidt seem more cold-hearted and detached from humanity and what he did in the movie, whereas he was genuinely well meaning, but clearly insane, in the comic. The movie also seems to side with Rorschach being correct, whereas in the comic it's meant to be more inconclusive and up to the reader as to whether the opinion of Veidt or Rorschach was correct, or if both were wrong. For the most part, I'm conflicted on it because it's made clear that nuclear war was inevitable unless something happened, and by doing what he did, Veidt successfully stopped it, or at least delayed it by a few decades. At the same time, Veidt had no right to do what he did, and he had also come to the arrogant assumption that only he was capable of saving humanity, so his actions were as much an intention to stroke his ego as much as save the world. Rorschach, while having his heart in the right place, would have brought the (at least temporary piece) to a screeching end if he told people what had happened. While the journal in the film more or less shows he does anyway,it's shown in the comic that the paper he gave it to was a right wing propaganda sheet and would have probably been disregarded easily by most people.
I guess what I'm trying to say is is that the mixed opinions/points is very much an intentional decision.
On a whole, I truly enjoyed the film. It may not be some perfect adaptation, but it is almost certainly the best adaptation one could hope for in the format of a film.