'Watchmen' is a better film than 'The Dark Knight' (3 Viewers)

[u-borat]

This was a good movie but it didn't have any emotion in it. The ending wasn't very good because the audience were meant to feel a sense of devastation that major cities were blown up and millions of ppl died. I for one didn't and if it had made an emotional connection with the audience then it would've been an epic movie.
The music should've been chosen better as some weren't really applicable to some scenes.

eh you have retarded taste in music, apart from mcr's cover for bob dylan the score is pretty much perfect.


and add in bruges to the list imo.

 

[shaon0]

eh you have retarded taste in music, apart from mcr's cover for bob dylan the score is pretty much perfect.


and add in bruges to the list imo.

lol 99 Luftballoons playing whilst in an intimate moment between two characters? I don't think that's good music selection among others.

 

[Graney]

I really liked the choice of "sound of silence" playing during the comedians funeral.

 

[ObjectsInSpace]

Bullshit. WATCHMEN sucked.

- Firstly, there was way too much exposition in the film. The monlogues in particular made me painfully aware of just how long I had been sitting in the cinema.

- Consequently, there was no space for the characters to breathe, and in turn the action sequences were just big, dumb and loud.

- Because of this, the violence was just unnecessary. In THE DARK KNIGHT, they at least make a point of handling the violence in such a way that it registers with the audience as being violent. WATCHMEN was just excessive, particualrly when the little girl was killed and when the woman was assaulted.

- I'm the only person I know who has read the book, and when my friends saw it with me, several of them had trouble understanding major parts of it.

- Finally, Snyder is a hack. He excessively used camera tricks, like slow motion, as if it were somehow original. I don't know why people persist on calling him a visionary when all he's doing is copying the frames of graphic novels on celluloid.

I want those three hours back. And if the Grim Reaper has seen this film, he'll give them to me.

 

[u-borat]

-if you have indeed read the book then in terms of exposition, the movie has less. the monologues, especially rorshach's serve a point and if you failed to appreciate them you're a dolt.

-hollywood constrictions, the characters were as well-fleshed out as they could have been in the limited time; niteowl2 and ozzy are slightly undercooked, but the other main protagonist (comedian, rorshach, jon, silkspectre2) are well characterised.

-unnecessary violence? the dark knight comes nowhere near watchmen in portraying the darkness and immorality of society, and as far as im concerned, the violence, while gory, was justified.

-your friends are retarded; i have several friends who had no inkling on the book who understood the film easily enough.

-imo, the camera effects in watchmen were quite tastefully done. the film tried to stay true to the comic so as far as im concerned, he's allowed to adapt it and he did it quite excellently.

re; 99 luftballons, look up the lyrics you retard and the implications of that romance (jon)

 

[Rhanoct]

I really liked the choice of "sound of silence" playing during the comedians funeral.

yes!

 

[SAVAK]

havnt watched it, heard its semi porn?

 

[ObjectsInSpace]

-if you have indeed read the book then in terms of exposition, the movie has less. the monologues, especially rorshach's serve a point and if you failed to appreciate them you're a dolt.

But the medium of the graphic novel is a much broader canvas than a celluloid film strip. Moore and Gibbons could take their time to explore what they wanted to, and the reader ould pursue it at their own leisure. I read WATCHMEN over the course of three days, but the film was forced down my throat in under three hours. There is a rule among writers that you show your audience what is happening, you don't simply tell them and expect them to take your word for it. Most of WATCHMEN was simply telling.

-hollywood constrictions, the characters were as well-fleshed out as they could have been in the limited time; niteowl2 and ozzy are slightly undercooked, but the other main protagonist (comedian, rorshach, jon, silkspectre2) are well characterised.

Don't confuse exposition for characterisation.

-unnecessary violence? the dark knight comes nowhere near watchmen in portraying the darkness and immorality of society, and as far as im concerned, the violence, while gory, was justified.

Violence on that scale is never justified. If Snyder truly were a "visionary", he would have handled it far better. Your profile says you do the HSC in 2013, so that means you're what, fourteen? I don't think any fourteen year old is in a position to pass judgement on the "darkness and immorality of society", largely because their experience of the world is so limited.

-your friends are retarded; i have several friends who had no inkling on the book who understood the film easily enough.

No, my friends happen to enjoy good film, and those who didn't understand parts of the film were the ones who had the hardest time digesting the chunks of exposition that were force-fed to the audience.

-imo, the camera effects in watchmen were quite tastefully done. the film tried to stay true to the comic so as far as im concerned, he's allowed to adapt it and he did it quite excellently

Take QUANTUM OF SOLACE as an example of how to do clever camera trickery the right way. When James Bond is in the fight in the art gallery, there's a shot where the camera is inverted. That's because he's suspended upside down, too, and trying to get to his gun. It makes sense to have used the shot because it relates to what is happening. But when Snyder uses his slow-motion camera, it serves no purpose other than to demonstrate what he can do. And because he uses it so often during fight scenes, all it does it point out the violence of it. Combined with the lack of room for characters to breathe, it has the effect of glorifying it.

 

[Ligeti]

I think the disparity between the reviews of the two films on sites such as rotten tomatoes, simply shows how strongly people are influenced by star power and hype.

What you are saying could justify The Dark Knight being overrated. But influence, star power and hype have nothing to do with the low ratings of Watchmen.

It simply isn't that great

 

[rewster]

Watchmen is a good film, and a different film, but by no means a great film. And it isn't anywhere near as good as The Dark Knight or Batman Begins.

 

[Graney]

What you are saying could justify The Dark Knight being overrated. But influence, star power and hype have nothing to do with the low ratings of Watchmen.

It simply isn't that great

Yeah, basically neither of them were as great as they're hyped to be. The Dark Knight wasn't even close to the best film of 2008.

But if you had to pick one, watchmen is better.

.

 

[scarybunny]

I liked it, loooved the soundtrack, particularly simon and garfunkel at the funeral and the opening credits with 'the times they are a-changin'.

There are lots of superhero, comic-style movies out there, and this is one of the better ones. It wasn't Sin City or Ironman, but it wasn't the Hulk either. Very entertaining, particularly on Imax (mad vertigo).

I will say that it was obvious that the film had been seriously condensed. It was nearly 3 hours long, but it still felt a bit squished. I guess there were backstories and stuff that needed to be told, but i'd love to read the graphic novel to get a better picture.

 

[Uncle]

Was pretty badass especially the fight scenes felt kinda odd I was the only one laughing when the comedian was punching the shit out of women, the ending was pure bullshit though but I'm sure turtles will love it seeing there is plenty of CYAN DICK AND ASS.

 

[Ligeti]

.

I disagree:

Performances: TDK
Soundtrack: TDK
Cinematography: TDK
Memorable scenes: TDK
Story: W
Script: TDK
Makeup: TDK
Editing: W
FX: TDK
Direccion: TDK

 

[scarybunny]

Nudity is pretty fun on imax.


That nipple must be larger than my head, and that penis is at least a storey high.

 

[jiey2k]

I read WATCHMEN over the course of three days, but the film was forced down my throat in under three hours. There is a rule among writers that you show your audience what is happening, you don't simply tell them and expect them to take your word for it. Most of WATCHMEN was simply telling.

Violence on that scale is never justified. If Snyder truly were a "visionary", he would have handled it far better. Your profile says you do the HSC in 2013, so that means you're what, fourteen? I don't think any fourteen year old is in a position to pass judgement on the "darkness and immorality of society", largely because their experience of the world is so limited.

No, my friends happen to enjoy good film, and those who didn't understand parts of the film were the ones who had the hardest time digesting the chunks of exposition that were force-fed to the audience.

Take QUANTUM OF SOLACE as an example

wow.. in bold are the things i lol'd at.

you are awesome bro

 

[u-borat]

the graphic novel shoves its unpleasants truths down your throat.
the movie replicates this.
this isn't some implicit film, its graphically explicit in the message its trying to portray.

actually an 08er, but whatever hey.

and you just sourced quantum of solace, the worst bond film ever created, as evidence.

everything you say now is void.


and actually graney, imdb has a high rating for watchmen right now, and i found that quite unexpected tbh.

 

[ObjectsInSpace]

and you just sourced quantum of solace, the worst bond film ever created, as evidence

Yes, because you're such an expert on good films. You like WATCHMEN, but hate QUANTUM OF SOLACE. I like QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but not WATCHMEN. I'm the polar opposite of you on that count, so that clearly I'm wrong about everything. I'm sure you'll go a long way with the "You're wrong because you disagree with me" train of thought.

 

[u-borat]

my appreciation of film has no basis in subjectivism; quantum of solace is a horrible film with a shite story, an appalling appropriation of james bond the character, undeveloped minor characters and essentially lurches from action scene to action scene. no arguments here that some of the action is well done and slick.
which makes it a decent popcorn flick, but nothing more.

 

[ObjectsInSpace]

my appreciation of film has no basis in subjectivism; quantum of solace is a horrible film

I'm sorry, do you want to try that again? You say your taste in film has no basis in subjectivism, and then you go ahead and say something subjective straight away. Your opinions are not facts, however much you might want them to be; the sheer fact that I think QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a good film disproves the idea that your tastes are free of subjectivity. Which makes you a hypocrite, and furthers my predispositon towards not liking you.