Afternoon Inquisition 3.7

I was up late last night seeing Watchmen, and today I am working on packing up my out of town apartment to move my stuff back home, so forgive me my lack of creativity.

Still, If I know my audience, I think I can rightly guess that many of you have seen and have strong opinions about the Watchmen movie. So here’s your opportunity to share:

Watchmen: Loved it? Hated it? Sick of the hype? Thought the book was better? Can’t be bothered? Lemme have it.

*edited to add: stay away if you don’t want spoilers.*

Related Articles


  1. Wow I thought there would be alot of posts (Man I must be a geek). To be honest this year is the first time I have read the watchman and I liked it in the context of it being from 1986. I saw the movie at 10:30pm last night and for being a three hour movie I thought it was to short for the story. And there is alot of man ass and blue wank.

  2. @Malkavian2008: “for being a three hour movie I thought it was to short for the story”

    As is almost always the case for such rich source material. I hated each and every incarnation of Dune until the miniseries which I loved. I remember thinking at the time: this James MacAvoy is pretty good. I’ll bet he’s got a nice career ahead of him.

  3. I liked it, even the revised ending was alright with me. I just read the comic this past week – and I liked Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan. The murder mystery story line sucks – but there’s different ways for a movie to work – story driven or character driven or both. This was character driven so whatevs.


  4. It was pretty good.
    The book was way better, but that’s often the case, especially considering how dense the material was.

    The non-squid ending did not disturb me, it worked well enough that way, and they could not have worked in all the foreshadowing for the squid that were in the book, so it would not have made sense.

    The film was certainly less subtle than the book, but it was expected.
    The violence (and sex) were more explicit than I remember the book’s to be.

    Similarly, most of the protagonists, especially Night Owl and Laurie, were more bad ass than I imagine them to be.

    All in all, fights and violence were choreographed with a lot of aesthetic behind it. This made a lot of sense in 300, it is part of Miller’s vision, not so much in Watchmen where there is nothing glamorous about violence (or anything else for that matter).

    My only major two complains were the fight scene right at the beginning, it is not in the comic and it reveal too much, it shows that the killer is a bad-ass fighter which, to me, made it too obvious that it was Veight.

    Also, right at the end, I am saddened that they cut of the dialogue between Veight and Manhattan, where Veight ask Manhattan for a confirmation that he did good and Manhattan can not answer.
    It shows a vulnerability in Veight, and I liked it.

    The death of Rorschach was also a bit disappointing. I liked the comic version better where it happened shockingly fast and without all the shouting.
    Much more faithful to both Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan’s characters.

  5. Considering the breadth of the source material, I was completely satisfied with what they did. Every movie will lose something from the book, so what I find to be significant is what the director decided to keep in.

    The music choices, in particular brought out a whole element of comedy I was not expecting to see, and I think that heightened the whole experience.

    As a hardcore Watchmen nerd, (having waited in line for the 12:00 showing) I walked away really happy with what I saw.

  6. I loved the movie. The book was better of course, but that’s inevitable; you can’t turn the amount of plot Watchmen has into a movie without pruning some of it.

    I was pleasantly surprised as to how much of the background material they got in there and the credit sequence was incredible.

    That’s why I went to see on Saturday at 10am, there were about 4 other people in the theatre with me and it looked like they are also Watchmen fans who appreciated the idea of enjoying the movie: in silence.

  7. Loved the book, enjoyed the movie. I thought the film stood well enough on its own. While I do agree that the ending was weaker – “We have put aside our differences and stand united in opposition to this dude who could annihilate us with a thought.” just doesn’t seem to carry the same weight – I felt it held together well enough to be enjoyable. And I think it will encourage interested viewers to read the source material.

    @Simon39759: Rorshach’s death happened about that way in the comic. The confrontation, the dialogue, the ripping off of the mask and the screaming by Rorshach to just get it over with are straight from the pages. I was just glad they used the ‘splodey effect instead of making him just disappear or something to make it clear that, yep, he’s dead.

  8. Oh, one thing that did surprise me about the movie: the number of kids under the age of 10 in the theater. Show me a person who will bring their 3rd-grader to see Watchmen and I’ll show you someone who has never read the book. My enjoyment of the movie was heightened by the varied responses to “why does she have her shirt off?”

  9. Watchmen was so good. (The love scene on the owlship got applause in my theater, actually.)

    My only beef? Why did they feel it necessary to change Ozy’s line?! WTF IS ‘TRIGGERED’ RAAAAAAAAAGE

  10. It was…OK. I hadn’t read it previously, so I didn’t have much invested. Visually stunning, but what was with the makeup? Nixon looked like he had a ball glued to his nose, and poor Carla Gugino looked like Lea Thompson in BTTF 2. Malin Ackerman was badly miscast. She just doesn’t have the range to pull off those line readings. It was diverting and definitely covered interesting philosophical ground, but it will ultimately be a footnote in comic movie history.

  11. @James K

    Other people are only half the reason movie theaters are evil:

    – Too cold. I got tired of hauling along a parka in the summer.

    – Too loud. Action/adventure movies are usually pumped up to my pain threshold.

    – Spoilers. See one movie have trailers spoil six more for you.

    – Ads. I’m paying $10 to watch ads?!

    – Lousy quality. Wrong lenses and other obvious projection problems seem to be more common now.

    – Parking. I have yet to encounter a theater with bicycle parking.

    Fill the theater with people and I can double the size of this list…

    …and stay off my lawn!

  12. Watchmen had already found it’s ideal medium in comic form, hell Moore created it specifically intending to demonstrate what was possible only within the pages of a graphic novel.

    Bearing that in mind I think it was as good as a film interpretation of Watchmen ever had the potential to be. It even had momentary flashes of brilliance (credits!).

    Rorschach and Manhattan were spot on throughout. Ozymandias was better than expected. Silk Specter II was adequate at best. Nite Owl II was fine. Nixon’s nose was hilarious.

    The ending somehow made more sense than the comic’s version!

    Comparing it to other comic book movies seems unfair to me. Batman, Spiderman, Superman etc, all have long histories of live action interpretation and have been around for decades longer, being written by countless different authors. Watchmen, as a one off, gave Snyder only one text to draw inspiration from, plus a very strict visual guide to how things “should” look. Plus Moore couldn’t have written a more twisty and complex story if he’d tried. Perhaps he was trying.

    This movie was always gonna’ be one for the fanpeople (“fanboys” doesn’t seem appropriate for skepchick). Why the hell shouldn’t it be?

  13. Haven’t seen the movie yet. The prospect of a changed ending doesn’t bother me too much, since, actually, I didn’t think the interdimensional squid thing from the original worked very well. Throughout the entire book, the only deviations from ordinary science are due to Dr. Manhattan, and suddenly, in the last act, Ozymandias whips out a psionic weapon? Huh?

    The brain of Ozzy’s creature was supposedly “cloned from the brain of a human sensitive”. Hmm. If “human sensitives” had had any significant impact on the story before then, it might have worked better. It was a plot device from a superhero comic, dropped into a story which until then had been about people in superhero costumes, which is not the same thing at all.

  14. I couldn’t have made a better movie conversion. And speaking as a retired comics professional, movies and comics will always have unavoidably different strengths and weaknesses.

    But one giant cock-up leapt out at me in the movie (can’t remember it from the comic): Take a look at the Martian moons they show. They’re numerically correct, but more than a teensy bit incorrectly sized.

  15. I echo the thought that while it obviously couldn’t do everything the comic could, it certainly did really well. I was really pleased how most of the major scenes even had identical dialogue from the comic.

    I also liked the new ending moreso than the comic ending. Especially for the people who hadn’t read the book, it probably made a lot more sense to use nukes than super-vagina monsters.

    The makeup did annoy me throughout the movie, but I generally dislike the look of makeup to begin with.

  16. Makeup is indeed stupid.

    By the way, should this thread have a spoiler warning at the top, or can we assume that people here will be smart enough to know that this is something that can’t be discussed without referring to plot details?

  17. I haven’t read the book, but I saw the motion comic, which was absolutely amazing. It was done by the same illustrator and the guy who did the voices was pretty good except that he couldn’t do women’s voices well. I liked the movie a lot. I thought they did a good job with it. I was disappointed with the change of the ending though, but that might be because I like Doc Manhattan a lot. I went to the 1:00 PM showing at a theatre nearby my school. Sitting in front of me was a Couple with some pretty young children Two boys the oldest was probably 8 a younger boy and a little girl who couldn’t of been older than 5. I don’t have kids of my own but If I did I don’t think I’d take them to see a movie like watchmen, especially since the sex and violence was pretty graphic.

  18. I was talking to Alan Moore the other day, and I did mention the movie (note my not so subtle name drop…don’t worry…he’s the only person I know who is remotely famous in any way, so I’m using this current watchmen crave to do it at every opportunity). He has not seen it, and says he is not going to see the movie, but from the clips he has seen, he says its probably the best way it could have been adapted from his comics.

    I saw Watchmen the other night, and I really enjoyed it. There is always this issue when a comic or book is made into a movie of the “real” fans and how they react, vs the general public and keeping them happy. I think you have just got to see it for what it is, which is a movie, which generally geared towards pleasing the mass population. As far as that goes, it was a very good movie…especially along side some of the crap we have been seeing in the box office recently. Although the comic book adaption thing has been going on for a while, I really think with the Dark Knight, and now the Watchmen, we are seeing a much deeper dimension to them. We now expect the comic movies to be a lot deeper and enaging, than the previous batch, and that can only be a good thing. As far as the movie goes, I loved it…is it as good as or better than the book?…No. However I don’t think there is too much more they could have done to improve it. It reminds me of the whole Lord of the Rings fiasco, of true fans complaining about how loyal to the book it is. We just have to understand the balancing act that the film makers have to make when doing this sort of thing. However, it did bring Lord of the Rings to the wider population, and inspired a new generation of kids to start reading it, and I hope Watchmen does the same.

  19. Add me as yet another voice saying that I have read both the book and seen the movie, and found the movie to be excellent. I also liked the changed ending; it certainly did work better. Every change they made I agreed with. Cutting most of the backstory of the psychiatrist treating Rorschach was a great move – that was the weakest point of the book to me (sans the Black Freighter, which was just dumb). Some scenes I didn’t even realize they cut until I left the theatre, and I realized I didn’t miss them.

    My one complaint was the level of graphic violence. I knew going in to it that it was the same director as “300”, so I was braced for it. I found that with the exception of two scenes for me, the violence was at high but tolerable levels. Two of the scenes, though, had be distracted for about ten minutes while I tried not to throw up in my seat. I thought they didn’t add a thing and instead took my attention away from the movie.

    I love Rorschach. They made him bad-ass without his face. I hated his unmasking and backstory in the novel – it turned him from a deeply disturbed maniac into a cliched bad guy.

    Based on what I expected the movie to be, I give it an A-. That’s pretty darn good.

  20. I liked it. It was a very satisfying adaptation. Much had to be changed, but all in all it felt very true to the original comic.

    Actually, the explicit nature of the violence and the sex kind of amplified one of the themes of the book that doesn’t get much attention. I.e., that you’d have to be pretty fucked in the head to put on a costume and pick fights with criminals. Take, for example, the look that Laurie and Daniel share in the prison just before their fight with the criminals. I don’t remember that in the book, but it works with the stuff that was, like the fact that Daniel couldn’t get it up until he put on his costume and did some vigilante shit. Or the whole subplot of Silk Spectre and The Comedian, for that matter… talk about fucked up. The glee that Snyder takes in choreographing both violence and nudity served that particular theme quite well, by showing us both of those things as one imagines the characters themselves do.

    It doesn’t even have to be some high art thing. I mean, maybe the guy’s just a pervert who likes seeing people punched and dismembered. But, in this case, it worked with the material rather than against it, in my opinion.

    Anyway, other random thoughts.

    I loved the way that the guy who played Rorschach was totally channeling Clint Eastwood for the scenes where he had his “face” off in prison. And with the voice, too. The obvious connection everyone made was to Christian Bale’s gravelly Batman, but after a while I started to get that it was really more of a Dirty Harry thing going on.

    There was a surprising amount of giant, blue cock. Surprising in that the film didn’t rate NC-17, I mean. Usually, the MPAA frowns on that sort of thing.

    The effects for Dr. Manhattan were pretty fantastic. Mainly, I mean the way that he seemed to not quite be in any of his scenes. Like he was apart, pasted in. Considering how good Hollywood is with CGI these days, and how seamless most of the movie’s other effects were, it had to be an intentional decision. It worked to emphasise his isolation from the rest of humanity.

    In general, though, Snyder’s big weakness as a director is communicating that humanity. His stuff comes off as very cold. In 300, it really didn’t matter. In Watchmen, it both works and doesn’t. I can’t entirely decide. After all, the whole thing with Nite-Owl is that he completely fails to find a civilian identity after he retries, so it works for him. Adrian considers himself better than the rest of humanity, so it works for him as well. And Manhattan, obviously, is not really human any more at all. But for Laurie and Rorschach? I don’t know. Rorschach is supposed to be pretty unhinged, but he’s still ultimately human. I think I’ll give him a pass. But while Laurie’s actress turned in a pretty good performance, the character still felt fairly underserved, especially considering how essential she was to Dr. Manhattan’s arc. It made sense for her to wind up with Daniel, so there was a minimal sort of competence there, yet I still didn’t feel completely sold on it. That might be ok. Maybe they’re not in love so much as the only two people on the planet who can deal with how fucked up the other is. That works with the themes of the story just fine. But still, I felt like something was missing there.


    Also, I didn’t get much sense of why Daniel and Laurie both went along with Veidt’s schemes. I haven’t read the comic in a while, so maybe it failed there as well. Still, a little more time spent on that in the film would have been nice.

    I think I have other thoughts, but I’m gonna stop now anyway. Whee.

  21. @Joshua:

    They went along with it because the alternative was global nuclear war. The only reason Rorschach didn’t go along with it is that he was incapable of compromising, even in the face of Armageddon.

  22. @James K: Factually and rationally, yes. But emotionally, I didn’t buy it. They should have had some reaction to Adrian’s scheme, but they just didn’t. They didn’t sell it. I mean, they’re supposed to be relatively detached, the mundane ordinary people are just players in their costumed drama, etc., etc… But they didn’t have the excuses that Adrian or Manhattan did, so they should have felt something before pushing it down and getting on with things.

    I just didn’t feel like their acceptance of Adrian’s plan was sold very well on screen. It was rushed and didn’t explore what the other characters felt about it, apart from Rorschach as you mentioned.

  23. I thought the film was very good — much better than I thought it would be. I read the graphic novel about 5 years ago and don’t have the attachment to the book that some fanboys of both genders might have. Apart from the lack of salesmanship about why Laurie and Dan maintained their silence about Adrian’s scheme, I thought that the major changes to the story (especially the impetus for Dr. Manhattan’s “exile” at the end) worked.

    My wife has a hard time sitting for longer than 2 hours in a movie theatre, had no familiarity with the graphic novel, and generally reacted positively, except for cringing a bit at a couple of the more graphically violent, rolling her eyes at the sex scenes, and standing up painfully as the credits rolled after 2 hours and 41 minutes.

  24. @Joshua: actually i thought they illustrated daniel’s emotional reaction pretty effectively through his final attack on veidt, against the wall of tv screens, which veidt takes willingly as though he understands that daniel needs to express his anger before he can move on.

    overall, i thoroughly enjoyed the film. my only possible complaint is that i really don’t like how zach snyder does fights. i can’t quite put my finger on it, but they just don’t sit right with me.

  25. @carr2d2: I’ll have to quote my own description of the fights from the new Square-Enix game The Last Remnant for this one: It’s very… flashy.

    He does these incredibly graphic scenes with blood splattering all over and bones snapping and whatnot, but the fast-slow-fast pacing he does makes the end result a bit too slick. I tend not to like fight scenes that rely on camera tricks like that, just as a general rule, but the disconnect between the gore and the slick editing in Watchmen was a bit too much at times.

    Then again, as I said, the glamourisation does play into one of the themes of the story by showing how the heroes themselves must see the violence they’re inflicting on others. Intentional or not.

    I guess you’re right about Daniel’s reaction to Veidt’s scheme. And Laurie did try to shoot the guy. But I’m still a bit meh about how easily they went along with it. It’s part of their arrogance, I guess, that they feel qualified to judge what is and is not good for humanity, just as Veidt himself did, but I still felt that wasn’t explored enough in the film. The ending we got just wrapped up a bit too quickly, I felt.

    Also, they cut Veidt’s gloating about actually being able to catch a bullet. That’s even worse than the squid thing. ;P

  26. Gonna toss in my (late) two cents here and say that I liked the movie, with reservations. I am not now, nor ever will be, a Zach Snyder fan. The speed up/slow down gag made me hate 300, and I certainly didn’t like it much here, although the rest of the stuff allowed me to over look it.

    I also did not like the way he seemed to fetishize violence. Sure, as Joshua said, that helps show how screwed up people who’d dress in masks and fight crime are, but it still stands in contrast to the book.

    The book IS very violent, undoubtedly so, but I think that in reading the book you don’t have to linger on every frame of violence. When someone else is controlling the time element of the story, as in a film adaptation, that ability is lost. We’re stuck lingering on the violence the way Snyder does, and I really don’t get a message other than “THIS IS RLY COOL GUYS, WATCH” out of that choice.

    Really, most of my issues with the movie come from the time element. I felt like it did well getting most of the plot and almost all of the origin stories into the film, BUT it def. felt like a long movie. And, without the ability to put it down after each chapter, I think you really lose a lot of the depth of the book. That’s pretty much inevitable in ANY film adaptation, so I can’t call that a fault of this one other than that I found I thought less about the themes and issues than I might have done if it were a mini-series in 12 parts or something.

  27. @Expatria: Yeah, I definitely wouldn’t accuse Snyder of being a good director. He does end up making pretty decent films, but mostly by virtue of the fact that he’s slavishly devoted to recreating his source materials. The one area where he really took a risk was in altering the squid ending, and that’s as much attributable to the screenwriters as to him.

    The thing is, he started with such good material here that the slavish devotion to recreating it worked in his favour. I’d hate to see him try to direct an original film. I think it would end poorly for all involved.

  28. Hey, did anyone catch the last dialog of Dan and Laurie, where he talks about “upgrades” to the “new model” or something like that? When the camera then zooms out from the storefront to the giant crater, on the street is a little hybrid or electric car plugged in. Is that what he was talking about? One last jab at big oil? If so, I love it!

  29. I just came home from the movie ( saw it with my son ). I have not read the graphic novel, nor has he … yet. On the way home we discussed what we thought were some of it’s themes : elements of social darwinism, fascism, narcicism, and God delusions ran through the film, amongst others. He liked the film a lot, but after reading everyone’s comment I realize that there is something about the film prevents me from really liking it: the characters. I couldn’t connect with any of them. To me, each character seemed to define some aspect or aspects of mankind – but each character , to me is too fragmented, be it cynicism, fear, ego, intelligence, the need to be loved, rationalization etc etc , none of them seemed like a cohesive individual. Yeah, yeah … we all have our demons, our flaws, and yeah … it’s possible that as a cohesive group they collectively defined humanity, but ( pun intended ) they seemed too cartoonish, too incomplete, too non developed as characters to make me care about them and their world.

  30. *hides under desk, anticipating*

    I actually liked it better as a movie. I read the graphic novel about a month ago and it took me forever to slog through. Honestly, that was mostly because of Tales of the Black Freighter. To me, that added only minor amounts of value to the story while making it infinitely harder to read, decipher and enjoy. But that’s me.

    There were things in the movie that bugged me, of course. A few enjoyable scenes were missing, namely the one in the garden in Ozymandias’s antarctic palace. A few scenes were changed, or overindulged on screen, but it was definitely an enjoyable movie. A great movie. Not an excellent movie. Maybe a 7.5/10.

    @halincoh: It’s funny you say that about the movie, because I had a similar gripe about the book. You don’t really connect with any of the characters there, either. Rorschach to an extent, but not the others. The book feels like it actually holds out an arm and keeps you at bay from the characters. It’s strange.

  31. Saw it, loved it. Three major problems:

    1: Soundtrack. Terrible choice after terrible, jarring choice.
    2: The sex scene. At least 1.5 minutes too long, and transformed what shoudl have been an important, tender, even artful moment into a purile teen-sex comedy scene (complete with ejaculation gag).
    3: (and this is the worst one) Ozymandias. Terrible casting, leading into a terrible flat performance. In the comic he is a perfect physical specimin – the exemplar of humanity. he is handsome but not slimy, charming but not sleazy, successful but not cutthroat, confident but likeable. His plan, through everything, is a plan to save humanity. He deeply regrets every sacrifice, and makes the tough choice anyway. He doubts himself (abotu something this big, anyway) right until the moment he sees the news, and shouts with tears in his eyes “I DID IT!” He is not evil – he is simply… bigger… than most other humans.

    In the film, you can see he is the bad guy from fifty paces. He squints, he rants, he scowls. He delivers his speech at the end in a disgusting, smug tone that indicates that he has not saved the world, he just outsmarted everybody. “I felt every death”? No f-in way, you did. He has nothing but contempt for everyone – the humans he saves are commodities, just like the ones he killed.

    Had they gotten Ozzy right, all other flaws would be forgiven – that is a hard one to forgive. it turned a potential 10/10 into a 6 or 7.

    Can’t WAIT to see it again. :D

  32. I’m a big fan of the comic, and I saw the movie yesterday. I had low expectations, based largely on some of the early reviews. The NY Times piece was about as brutal a takedown as I’ve ever read. The Onion liked it, though, so I thought I’d give it a shot.

    Good stuff:

    -Rorschach and the Comedian. Those were some damn solid performances, for any movie. Perfect casting, perfect performances. Both were complex and believable for comic book “heroes,” in a Dark Knight kind of way. If any actor can make me empathize with either one, who were nasty pieces of work, each, then that’s amazing.

    -The action scenes (mostly). They ramped up the karate-chopping force levels to 11 compared to the Dark Knight, but it never felt cartoony. And compared to DK, the fights were more comprehensible as a viewer.

    -Costumes. Yes, yes, Silk Spectre II’s was interesting (though her breasts seemed to grow compared to her nude scene), but damn if Nite Owl’s costume wasn’t neat looking. in the flesh.

    -Pacing. I was worried about the disjointed way the novel was structured translating into film, but overall the film worked for me. The director did a good job of not being afraid to slow things down when necessary. And even though it was quite long, I was almost never bored (except that love scene).

    -The setting. I really felt like I was back in the 80’s (albeit changed). The bad clothes, the hairdos, the nuclear brinkmanship talk. All of it worked for me.

    Bad stuff:

    -Pretty much every other actor besides the above two. Silk Spectre II and Ozzy, especially, were badly cast and cringe-worthy. Spectre talked like a valley girl. Ozzy chewed the scenery with his reedy voice and Adam West era Batman capering.

    -The violence. I can take graphic stuff, but like the commenter above who said they almost lost their lunch, I just started closing my eyes by the prison escape. The comic never felt that violent, even for Moore.

    -The music. While the incidental stuff was fine, the pop/rock songs grated and took me out of the experience. Such things should be used very sparingly for this genre.

    -The sex scene. It was about as believable as the porno movies I may have accidentally seen.

    Overall, I give it a solid B. I liked it a lot, warts and all.

  33. @acephalist: The music is a perfect example of what I meant about Snyder’s slavish adaptations. ;P All of them were directly mentioned in the comic. They don’t all work as well on film as well as they do on the page. “99 Luftballoons” was particularly grating, and I felt it distracted from the scene where it was used.

    Apart from that one, though, I can’t think of any that bothered me overly much. I would have dug the Dylan version of “All Along the Watchtower” in place of the Hendrix one, but then I’m weird that way.

  34. @Joshua: Oh, I know it’s personal taste. For me, pretty much all of the songs took me out of the movie except for the Dylan song in the beginning, which worked okay over the montage. I mean, what else can you do during a montage. But the Tears for Fears song, Luftballoons, and Sounds of Silence were ack to me. The orchestral/rock scoring worked fine everywhere else.

    Thinking on the music, though, I can see why Moore would balk at a film adaptation.

  35. Saw it Saturday with my 18 year old son. We both enjoyed the movie. We drove up to Canada to watch the movie on an immense screen with a kick ass sound system. We had hoped to see the movie on IMAX but we were 10 minutes late, but other screen was quite good.

    I haven’t read the graphic novel but my son has he enjoyed it. I’m not likely to. I enjoyed the revisionist history and all the mid 1980’s stuff and the use of period music was OK. I looked around for any younger kids and thankfully didn’t wee any. This movie is NOT for kids under 14ish.

  36. Loved it. Though I was suprised at the amount of full frontal male nudity for a film thats aimed at 17-25 yo blokes. That’s a pretty brave stand to make.

    I thought the comedy ejaculation scene added a touch of comic relief (I think it was the only “laugh” in the film)

    One thing that did puzzle me though was Dr Manhatten’s Underpants that looked like they’d been hastily drawn on in editing and he only seemed to be wearing in those scenes when he was 50 feet tall. Perhaps a bright blue penis every couple of minutes is ok as far as the censor goes but a 25 foot tall bright blue penis is clearly too much for them.

    Also, I shall defo be going to watch “Lesbain Vampire Killers”, the flim trailered before Watchmen, when it comes out

  37. Oh and did anyone else pick up on the part on Mars where Dr Manhatten said the chances of radom events leading to human development where infinetesimal?

    Clearly someone missed biology classes

  38. I never read the book, so I came in with a blank slate, and, I was very unimpressed. I think they shot off all their money scenes in the previews, there weren’t enough fight scenes, and the ending was awful.

    The plot twists made sense, but there weren’t any “oh my, didn’t see that coming, that was awesome”. Anyone who is familiar with the sonnet with the same name as one of the characters was expecting something, which was never delivered.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button
%d bloggers like this: