I had the weird juxtaposition of seeing Watchman in the theatre and then later caught the beginning of The Incredibles on TV.
I thought Watchman was okay, but it pales in comparison to The Incredibles as a story about superheroes going underground and missing the action.
I had no trouble with the soundtrack. It was right and wrong by turns, but never took me out of the movie.
I think the director couldn't figure out what tone he wanted for the movie. A darkly funny parody, a straight up noir or comic book "movie" or whatever. I would have rather seen Alex Proyas' take on it.
Visually, I loved it. Though I was disappointed in the BBP. You guys set me up to be really impressed or bothered by it, and I hardly noticed it in most scenes. Did I miss something?
Jeffery Dean Morgan was hella disturbing. The guy playing Ozimandias was not at all impressive and I was disappointed that he was the Big Bad.
Jackie Earle Haley totally stole the movie.
I may have more thoughts later.
hurm. Maybe us folks who were all
penis!
should be looking within for the answer.
I just saw it again, and, to my surprise, the BBP was way more present than I thought it was. I didn't really notice it the first time around, but since I wanted to see what all the fuss was about, I made a special effort. And there it was, dangling around the whole movie.
I think I liked it more as a movie this time around, just appreciating how well put together and filmed it was, even if I do agree with a lot of the criticisms.
Jackie Earle Haley still rocks.
Maybe I saw it on a "big" screen? I was also not expecting full frontal male nudity in a comic book movie. I mean Batman never shows his...
I was also sitting right near some male teenagers who laughed every single time the penis was present, which bothered them a lot and made me notice even that much more.
The film's commitment to Doctor Manhattan's penis is truly impressive.
The guy playing Ozimandias was not at all impressive and I was disappointed that he was the Big Bad.
Ozymandias got short shrift in the film, IMHO. I have no idea why they cast someone smaller, and with fewer traditional "leading man" qualities. There are reasons why everyone's supposed to freak out at the idea that Veidt's behind the murders -- he's smarter, stronger, faster, richer and better looking than all of them, and they know it. I just didn't buy that the measly looking Matthew Goode. He was too slight.
I really do try to take the film on its own merits, but I'm afraid the bits I most enjoyed about it are the ones where I could forget the movie itself and just see panels fromt he comics come alive.
The film's commitment to Doctor Manhattan's penis is truly impressive.
I have to say, I'll be interested to see this later today. We're going to a matinee for my birthday before the movie's gone.
There are reasons why everyone's supposed to freak out at the idea that Veidt's behind the murders -- he's smarter, stronger, faster, richer and better looking than all of them, and they know it. I just didn't buy that the measly looking Matthew Goode. He was too slight.
Yes to all of this. I was really hoping he could pull it off (in concept, the idea of Veidt looking more nerdy than golden-godlike was interesting), but, meh. He just didn't project any kind of power.
He just didn't project any kind of power.
Yeah, I see what they were going for, but it all sort of fell apart when you're watching him kick Rorschach and Nite-Owl's ass. It didn't ring true, especially as they beefed Nite-Owl up a bit from the comic.
I've always felt that, in the land of comic-book tropes that Moore was originally playing with, Ozy was supposed to be the Doc Sampson type, the pulp hero who was impossibly good at everything. Dropping that (along with other things) seemed to mute the commentary.
