Front row on Radio 4 reviewed it this evening. They said that the first 10 minutes were good...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/frontrow/past_programmes.shtml
++Update
Jonathan Ross gave it a broadly positive review.
==================== My rhythm and rhymes, I'm bending 'em.
Comics-writer and friend of Rossy Mark Millar reviews it here.
I still can't decide whether to go see it. If you think about it, why is it that we want to see works in the comics medium turned into film? Watchmen was designed to show off the medium of comics and that'll always be where it works best.
Wanting film adaptations is like tacit agreement that comics are an inferior art form.
Although there have been enjoyable Batman movies, none of them are as good as Frank Miller's comic/graphic novel Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. Okay, the (first two) X-men movies are great movies but they took the best elements of years worth of X-men comics - none of which were anywhere near the quality of Watchmen - so weren't a straight adaptation.
On a vaguely related theme, am I the only person who was interested in watching Apocalypto but gave it a miss because of being uncomfortable with the idea of giving Mel Gibson money?
Not because he gets drunk and calls women "Sugar-t*ts", but because he does seem to have some questionable views. I'd say more but I might be heading into libel territory.
Not sure what Alan Moore would think about that.
Ace
"Story" from the Mail on Sunday about Alan Moore......
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1162089/Hollywood-super-hairo--comic-book-genius-wont-make-penny-65m-Watchmen.html
Has anyone actually watched it yet? Or have you heard the opinions of regular punters (ie not reviewers or people in "the media") who went to see it?
I saw Watchmen last night, and I really enjoyed it. The action's pretty intense, the opening fight is a full-on assault to the senses that leaves you quite breathless. Really well-choreographed, very brutal and realistic, and it's easy to tell what's going on as it's not rapidly edited (one of my worries was that the action would be so quickly-cut that it wouldn't make any sense, but that's definitely not the case.) As you'll probably have heard, there's some fairly extreme violence throughout the film, and I had to look away at one point (you'll probably know the scene when you see it.) Patrick Wilson was a lot better as Dan Dreiberg than I thought he'd be, and I thought he was just the right look for the character. I was worried beforehand that he looked too young and slim in the clips that I'd seen, but I think I'd got the wrong idea about him, as he seemed almost middle-aged and a bit porky. I didn't think Malin Akerman was too good, her scenes with Patrick Wilson are a bit soap opera-ish at times, but it doesn't spoil it. Rorschach was great and he has real charisma despite the mask. I thought Jeffrey Dean Morgan was spot-on as the Comedian; when he plays him as an older man he looks just like he does in the book. Dr Manhattan was realised better than I thought he would be. In the photos I'd seen of him beforehand I thought he looked a bit wispy and insubstantial, whereas in the film he seems more "there". And Billy Crudup gives a good performance, appropriately emotionless at the right times. His flashback scene on Mars (everyone's favourite chapter in the book) is very well-done, a bit trimmed-down but it still takes its time and gets the relevant points across. I realise this isn't really a problem here as you've all read the book, but I found it a bit hard to judge if people who haven't read it would get it. There's several parts where I got the feeling you would need to have read the book to understand the reference (eg: a passing reference to the Keene Act that to the best of my recollection isn't really expanded upon.) I would've liked some more stuff about the Minutemen, I thought they'd be in it a bit more (maybe in the director's cut.) A lot of the dialogue is taken pretty much word-for-word from the book, and certainly that's the case for what people might consider to be the most important lines. Also, the structure is very faithful to the book with regards to the order of the scenes, and the film sticks very closely to the look of the book; there are many moments that echo panels from the book, and I thought the various locations looked just right. All in all I thought it was a very faithful adaptation, obviously with stuff left out, but with minimal changes to what was left in (Ok, there's a couple of pretty noticeable changes that you'll spot immediately, but on the whole they don't really affect the storyline.) I recommend you see it on the big screen as it's quite a spectacle, and you really need the picture and sound that a cinema provides to fully appreciate those fight scenes.
I saw Watchmen last night, and I really enjoyed it.
The action's pretty intense, the opening fight is a full-on assault to the senses that leaves you quite breathless. Really well-choreographed, very brutal and realistic, and it's easy to tell what's going on as it's not rapidly edited (one of my worries was that the action would be so quickly-cut that it wouldn't make any sense, but that's definitely not the case.) As you'll probably have heard, there's some fairly extreme violence throughout the film, and I had to look away at one point (you'll probably know the scene when you see it.)
Patrick Wilson was a lot better as Dan Dreiberg than I thought he'd be, and I thought he was just the right look for the character. I was worried beforehand that he looked too young and slim in the clips that I'd seen, but I think I'd got the wrong idea about him, as he seemed almost middle-aged and a bit porky. I didn't think Malin Akerman was too good, her scenes with Patrick Wilson are a bit soap opera-ish at times, but it doesn't spoil it. Rorschach was great and he has real charisma despite the mask. I thought Jeffrey Dean Morgan was spot-on as the Comedian; when he plays him as an older man he looks just like he does in the book.
Dr Manhattan was realised better than I thought he would be. In the photos I'd seen of him beforehand I thought he looked a bit wispy and insubstantial, whereas in the film he seems more "there". And Billy Crudup gives a good performance, appropriately emotionless at the right times. His flashback scene on Mars (everyone's favourite chapter in the book) is very well-done, a bit trimmed-down but it still takes its time and gets the relevant points across.
I realise this isn't really a problem here as you've all read the book, but I found it a bit hard to judge if people who haven't read it would get it. There's several parts where I got the feeling you would need to have read the book to understand the reference (eg: a passing reference to the Keene Act that to the best of my recollection isn't really expanded upon.) I would've liked some more stuff about the Minutemen, I thought they'd be in it a bit more (maybe in the director's cut.)
A lot of the dialogue is taken pretty much word-for-word from the book, and certainly that's the case for what people might consider to be the most important lines. Also, the structure is very faithful to the book with regards to the order of the scenes, and the film sticks very closely to the look of the book; there are many moments that echo panels from the book, and I thought the various locations looked just right.
All in all I thought it was a very faithful adaptation, obviously with stuff left out, but with minimal changes to what was left in (Ok, there's a couple of pretty noticeable changes that you'll spot immediately, but on the whole they don't really affect the storyline.) I recommend you see it on the big screen as it's quite a spectacle, and you really need the picture and sound that a cinema provides to fully appreciate those fight scenes.
Thanks for posting that Sev - perhaps I will bother going to see it at the cinema after all. Did your other half go too?
Someone I work with knows a couple of people who saw it but haven't read the book: they enjoyed it without thinking they were missing out - but perhaps that depends on the individual.
It does sound like the director's cut will be most of what was missing - I think it will have more minutemen stuff too. Hmm.
I read a review at the weekend which said the Black Freighter cartoon was sh*te but the DVD also has an Under the Hood pseudo-documentary which it said was great.
Come up to Stoke and we'll go see it Foxy! Even Emily's seen it.
Ok, I've been trying to post on here for the past few days, but everytime I get something typed my computer crashes: EVERY time. It's done it about 5 times, so I'm having to do this at work.
In response to Foxy: yes, we both watched it and both enjoyed it. I asked her afterwards (probably quite patronisingly) if she'd kept up with the plot, and it seems she had.
There's an interview with the writer and the director of the 'Under the Hood' feature here: http://uk.dvd.ign.com/articles/966/966037p1.html , which also links to a couple of clips from it. In the interview they confirm that a lot of the script is improvised, which you can tell when you watch the clips (but not in a bad way.) I'd be interested to see if this and 'Black Freighter' are included on the 'Watchmen' DVD in some kind of super-special edition.
I notice that there were little arrow things < > on the floaty google ads on this page. I clicked sideways to reveal more ads and there was one for "Hotels in Rorschach"!
I love that targeted marketing
More here
Ragga Twins step out!
Nice job. I'm not taken with his Steampunk Millenium Falcon though.
Just been reading this entire thread. How excited I was in March 08 that this film was on the horizon. After all of that time of course, I still haven't seen it.
#I am shit#