Badmovies.org Forum

I just saw this movie and was completely blown away. Its one of those rare movies that uses elements that we've seen in so many other comic book movies, and then completely brakes them. This movies long and there is a lot of story much of it wont make sense until the end. Lastly I would have to say this is one of the darkest movies i've ever seen, rarely do you see an ending as brutal as what you see in this movie.
I would say lots more about this movie but ive been awake for almost 24 hours and need to sleep. But see this movie.

Someone who has read The Watchmen, and has seen the film, chime in.

I have not read any of the comics or the book, but i saw the preview and thought it looked bad*ss. I went to the midnight showing and let me just say that i was not disappointed. the only thing is that i did not know it was almost 3 hrs long so that caught me off guard. the movie was all around amazing. but the boob to penis ratio was bad. i understand that manhattan doesnt like clothes, but i do not need to see his penis four times in one scene. this didnt make the movie any worse i just thought it was note-worthy.

I've read Watchmen. Many times, in fact. And I saw the movie. So this is me chiming in.

Saw it. Thought it was great. I'm working on a review to put up on Bearded Weirdo Reviews as we speak.

If you're a fan of the comic, you will be disappointed. I'm warning you now. I repeat: you WILL be disappointed. There IS stuff that is changed. There IS stuff that is left out. But, you know what? All the changes and exclusions are understandable. And it's still a good movie. It's still extremely entertaining, and extremely true to the source material.

Unfortunately, this film does NOT prove that you can compress Watchmen into a 2-3 hour movie and not be forced to leave out large swaths of important stuff. But the film DOES prove that you can adapt Watchmen into a 2-3 hour movie that is a DAMN GOOD 2-3 hour movie that is true to the spirit of the original graphic novel.

I have a few criticisms, but overall, I thought it was fantastic. And it's the best superhero movie I've ever seen (and I've pretty much seen 'em all).

Some people who haven't read the comic might have a harder time with it, and people who are going to see it just based on the trailer, with no prior experience with the comic, who are expecting a big action-fest with lots of cool gadgets, off-the-wall superpowers, and badass catchphrases will definitely not have an easy time of it.

Personally, I'd give it either a 4.5. or 5 star rating (out of a possible 5).

This is Hollywood redeeming itself after The Dark Knight.

You blaspheme!!!  Nothing could be better -- NOTHING -- than "Batman: The Movie" with Adam West!!!!!   :hatred: :hatred: :hatred:



 :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

It's an impossible task to try to cram the 12 issue Watchmen series properly into a 2 to 3 hour movie but I have to give Zack Snyder credit for trying.  By sticking so closely to the source material though I really don't see this film having much appeal outside of people who have read the comic. I'm going to withold my final rating until the 3 hour 10 minute director's cut is released on dvd later on this year. I originally gave the theatrical cut 3 stars out of 4 but I'm going to stick with 2 1/2 stars for the moment.  I think that V For Vendetta was a far better Alan Moore adaptation because they kept all of the themes and ideas while succesfully updating the movie making it relevant to current times.

You're both wrong.
Red Sonja is the best  :wink:

Umm, dearie, Red Sonja?  The sword-swinging hottie?  Okay, she had the power to make men stiff in certain places, but a superhero?  She's just a pretty sword jockey.

Sorry.  Not trying to highjack the thread. I swear.

I've read the maxi-series and like William said, I was disappointed. The problem with adapting anything into a movie is that you can never live up to everyone's expectations. In my mind, certain things were different in the book than they were on screen and they kinda bugged me. When I read the book, I imagined Dr. Manhattan would have a very strong, Godlike voice to go along with his remade superman body, not the same meek voice he had as a scientist. I understand making Manhattan more sympathetic to the audience, but I always thought of him as this "above silly things like humanity" that didn't need sympathy. Moloch also wasn't what I was expecting. I like Matt Frewer, but I always pictured Moloch as being a washed up old ex-Nazi type of villain, not a whimpering wiener. And Ozymandias? I feel like the movie-makers dumbed down his role in everything for... well, I can't say anything else without spoiling it for people who haven't read the story or seen the movie yet, but Ozy was my biggest unhappiness with the whole thing. I didn't like the opening scene, because I think expanding it gives away too much in the way of clues as to who Comedian's killer was. Again, I won't explain why. The biggest problem though is that it's a movie that attempts to introduce multiple characters and as such each character gets their own "origin" bit and character appropriate piece. In the comic that's fine because you can dedicate entire issues to each character and it works, but in a movie there's almost no way to do that without it coming off as disjointed. Just when you're getting into one character, the focus shifts to someone completely different for 20 minutes.

On the plus side though, I thought the guys playing Nite Owl and Rorschach were perfect and most of the time I thought the guy playing the Comedian was also great except for a few lines he delivered that just sounded so badly scripted. A few lines didn't translate well from the comic onto the screen and distracted from the scenes. They sounded cheesier. Some people say that this was intentionally done for the cheesy effect, but if it was, I think it hurt the movie for the sake of some stupid *wink*wink* gags. I do approve of the changed ending though. Originally I was deflated when I heard of the change because the originally ending is so appropriately "comic booky", but the new ending still fits great and works better as a "movie" ending.

Overall I thought it was good. The 3 hour run time didn't bother me and I didn't regret giving up my $10 to see it. I give it a 4-out-of-5.

Not a knock on you William, but people with that attitude towards comic adaptations irritate me.  I have a friend who is sometimes like that.  I mean, people are p**sy about the changes in the Watchmen film.  But, of course, Watchmen is one of the most literal comic book adaptations EVER.  The only one even close to as literal is Sin City, which is super duper literal.  I might add - I think BOTH of these films were TOO literal.  Both formats have their advantages, and I think things SHOULD be changed between them.  You're just begging for trouble if you don't. 

Watchmen, for example, I think would feel far more disjointed and harder to keep up with if you haven't read the comics.  I'm not sure how it should have been handled, but the movie is so densely packed with origins, back stories, and sidebars I imagine it must be frustrating at times for those who haven't read it first.  The comic has breathing room - a lot of small asides with minor characters, little bits from the news and normal people, etc - for pacing reasons.  The movie is missing all of this, and is also missing a variety of small character moments. 

All that said, I still think it is a good film.  Visually gorgeous, great acting from Jackie Earle Hayley (it's hard to imagine ANYONE being a better Rorscach now). 

Great movie.  As someone who likes the source material I can say that there were a few bits that irked me slightly, but none that detracted too much from the awesomeness of this movie.

I disagree with Anubis's assessment about the opening scene, though I agree it could have been done without the little clues etc. As someone who knew the story well, it was an obvious hint, but the few people I've talked to about it who haven't read the novel didn't pick up on it.

My only disappointments stem from the fact that there are cool plot lines I enjoyed missing, and due to some of that they cut down some of the emotional scenes which largely lost their power, such as Laurie's 'emotional scene' and Nite Owl and Rorschach's 'moment' as well.  By sticking too closely to the novel's dialogue, those scenes lost their power by deleting some of the scenes that preceded them.

The ending was a good change from the novel: I think it needed to be changed slightly for certain reasons due to other movies passing vaguely over the same plot before, and the change that was made was acceptable to me.  Ozy was also a bit of a fizzer in some ways, but I didn't mind it.

Rorschach and Nite Owl were great.  Spot on casting, and Malin Ackerman sure is fine to look at.


I still find it funny that there had to be someone whose sole job was to make sure Dr Manhatten's penis moved correctly.  That's gotta be odd for the resume.

So all up, other than a few gripes with script and some little character moments, I thought it was a wonderful film.

I should think that though, I've seen the bloody thing twice in two days...  :thumbup:


Go see it, it's worth it.

I'm not the only one who has re-read their copy Watchmen trade paperback before seeing the movie which is very helpful to keep track of what's going on....There's no way the movie could have been exactly like the comic book version.  Hold the raging comic book geek in check..Most of the changes made sense and helped moved the movie's plot along. 

I caught the film at the midnight premiere Thursday night.  I'm a big fan of the source material and I went into the film with fairly low expectations. 

Watchmen was good.  Hell, it was REALLY good.  There are a few changes to the story, one which bothered me like crazy as it's a key plot point.  Still, the changes didn't hurt too much as the story was still cohesive and works over all.

The acting in the film is what really pushed it to a level that I hadn't imagined.  Jackie Earle Haley is Rorschach.  When I first saw him without his iconic mask, I got chills.  He's identical to the character in the graphic novel.  I cannot imagine anyone else playing this character.  There is so much ferocity and anger in the role.  Perfect.

Overall, it was really good.  I had worked 12hrs that day and ended up being awake for over 22hrs just to see the film.  I'm hoping to catch it again sometime soon.  Sure, it's almost 3hrs long, but it goes by at a quick clip.  It's one of those rare films that doesn't sugar coat anything for the audience and dares them to keep up with the story.  I admire it for that. 

Spoilers ahead for the graphic novel, not the movie.


The movie is great, and they did what they usually have to do with densely written source material. Somethings are shortened, others left out or changed to make movie flow.

My one big disappointment was when Rorschach was in prison.  Those sessions with the psychiatrist are some of the best writing in the comic, especially the bit  when he explains what drove him to leave Kovacks behind and he truly became Rorschach.  I didn't like them changing the way he dispatched the kidnapper.   The speech he gives about the nature of life is some great stuff and gives terrific insight into how the guy thinks.

Maybe this will inspire some that haven't read the graphic novel to run out and get a copy.


" Stood in the firelight , sweltering. Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent.  Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night.  Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone.

Live our lives lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later.

Born from oblivion; bear children , Hell-bound as ourselves; go into oblivion.

There is nothing else.

Existence is random, has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose.

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs.

It's us. Only us

Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning it's illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own meaning on this morally blank world.

Was Rorschach. "

Having read the graphic novel and watched the movie, here's my chime.

I love both. 

I went into the theater recognizing that it would not be a literal panel-by-panel recreation of the comic book.  Alan Moore writes comics with the intent of them remaining as comics, as there are things he can do in that medium that he feels cannot be done well in media such as film. 

I was slightly disappointed that so much of Rorschach's therapy sessions were cut out, particularly the explanation that he first put on the mask in reaction to the Kitty Genovese rape/murder. 

I was disappointed by the lack of Lovecraftian "alien" at the end.  But I feel like the ending they used works well anyways, as it (in my eyes, at least) emphasizes how frightening and alien Dr. Manhattan is to the rest of humanity. 

Overall, I see it as a sort of "Rashomon" effect -- in the graphic novel, we have "Watchmen" from Alan Moore's perspective.  On the screen, we have "Watchmen" from Zack Snyder's perspective.  We, as the readers/viewers, further interpret those, creating our own version of "Watchmen."


To those fans who complain about the film not being a panel-by-panel recreation of the book, I say this: "Do you enjoy the book less knowing that this film adaptation exists?" If the answer is no, then there you go.  Enjoy the book.  If the answer is yes, then I feel sorry for those fans. 

Did I not say in my post that the changes are good, and make sense, and belong in the movie?

I think you may have misinterpreted my post. When I say that comic fans will be disappointed because there are changes, I don't mean that fans of the source material SHOULD be disappointed, nor that changes weren't/aren't necessary. I'm very much NOT saying that comic book adaptations should be moment for moment, scene for scene, frame for frame exactly the same. I understand that these are two different mediums, and there must be alterations made when moving a story from one to the other.

The purpose of my "warning" is to let fans of the original comic, many of whom seemed to have been expecting, in the days leading up to the film's release, for the movie to be EXACTLY the same as the comic. My "warning" was intended to let them know that they should NOT expect that, because if they do they will be disappointed. I was trying to point out that we must remember that, as these two mediums are so different, we must be prepared to accept alterations and exclusions. Fact is, if you're a fan of the graphic novel, then chances are you were looking forward to the scene in which Rorschach talks to the prison psychologist about the night he "snapped" and if you were hoping for that scene to be played out in full, you will be disappointed.

That doesn't mean you should disregard or dislike the movie based on how true or untrue it is to the original comic. In fact, what I was trying to say, and what I thought I said quite clearly, was that the movie should be judged on its own merits... as a movie.

That being said, it is in this judgment that you and I are in disagreement. As an adaptation, Watchmen is extremely good and extremely faithful. As a movie, by itself, without the mental baggage associated with familiarity with the source material, I think it is ALSO very, very good. I don't think that Watchmen was "too literal." I also disagree with you in your assertion that Sin City was "too literal." Sin City, I thought, was fantastic, and the story/stories in some ways worked even BETTER in movie form than it/they did in the comics. I'm glad that you liked the film, but I don't think it was "too literal." I thought Snyder perfectly balanced his reverence for the original work and his desire to replicate the feel of that work faithfully... with his need to imprint the film version with his own sense of style. If he was unable to do that, then it would have been a lifeless reproduction, and it would have been redundant. But I think that Snyder managed, quite deftly, to remain creative within structural and thematic confines that another director might have found restrictive and stifling. I, personally, did not find the film disjointed or hard to keep up with, though I might be biased because of my long history with the story. However, I have talked to SEVERAL people who have seen the film without ANY familiarity with the original comics, and only one of those people found it hard to keep up with. This actually, for the record, surprised me. Because I thought that maybe it would be a little hard to keep up with. But the only person I talked to who had that problem was, all due respect to him, kind of (shall we say?) "slow." I do agree that maybe the film is a bit too dense for the average movie-goer who doesn't really know what kind of movie Watchmen is, but not to a degree that it excludes most people. And, in a way, I don't think that even THAT is entirely a criticism. I consider Watchmen a challenging movie, in a time when such few films are few and far between, and I'd like to think that we, as a people, in general relish the chance to be challenged. I do, however, agree that film has pacing problems... as well as a few other minor issues. Like I said in my first post, I do have some criticisms.

None of those criticisms, though, are simply "changes have been made, and I don't like that, grrrrr."

Now, if you'll please excuse me, I've gotta go make plans to go n' see the movie again later on tonight. Which will mark my third viewing.

Lol.

I'm absolutely going to see it, but I will have to wait until June  :bluesad: I hate living in Sweden

Will, I said the "not a knock on you" bit since people on forums frequently misread what I'm saying as an attack on them even when it clearly isn't.  It's more a defensive reflex than anything (kind of like how people stick IMO at the end of tons of things which are quite clearly opinion).  Obviously, that wasn't needed with you.   :cheers:

I read Watchmen but it was a long time between reading it and seeing the movie.  I also saw it with a group of friends who never read it, so we had some different opinions all around.  They all seemed to like it.

I was surprised as to how closely it followed the book (except for the ending-which so many other comic book fans are talking about I really don't see the need to bring it up again).  But deffinatly some great scenes in it.

There were a few unintentional laughs.  Like when Nite Owl and Silk Spectre are making love in the owl plane and the weirdest music choice is played.  It's like a gosepel song.  And yes, eveyone laughed seeing Dr. Manhatten walk around naked.

I liked it-and I feel guilty about that.  Alan Moore hates it when Hollywood makes his works into movies, and for the most part I can see why.  Watchman is considered the work that brings comics into respectable literature.  Alan Moore said he will never see the movie-and I seriouly doubt he liked the idea of the inevitable wave of mechandising that is to come.

I liked his original novel.  I can see where his thought process about it is coming from.  Is it wrong to enjoy another person's take and somebody elses work?  (obvisouly not plagerism, but you get my point)

When I went to see this in IMAX on Saturday someone actually brought their kid! I didn't really see the kid in the rows in front of me when the movie got sexual, so I suppose they took him out of there.

There was also a guy from a local comic shop who stood up after a voiceover by a DJ from a local country station had told us all to please turn off our cell phones. He stood up before the previews started and said that you could get a free comic from his store if you brought in two ticket stubs from the movie.

The movie itself was excellent. The credit sequence at the beginning was perfect to explain how the coming of science heroes changed the course of American history and subsequently world history as well. I don't know if a general audience could understand how a change in events in the past could lead to an alternate history. I was pleased as punch to see this in a theatrical movie though, and the Bob Dylan song accentuated it perfectly.

Alan Moore doesn't have his name on this film either-again. He talked about only putting his name on something expanding upon something he's written in an interview I read in Wizard Magazine once. I think that at this point he should take a page from Stephen King and compromise, it could only help to get people interested in his work that don't usually read comics. Only Dave Gibbons name comes up as the co-author of the graphic novel in the credits.

I was impressed with everyone's performances in this film. It was much more believable for that. I kept noticing how Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson) looked alot like Bruce Campbell (without the greying hair and wrinkles-it's the chin really). I didn't expect Matt Frewer (Trashcan Man from the miniseries The Stand) as Moloch. It's always neat to see a character actor in a big movie like this.

I don't think the audience was prepared for Rorschach's psychoanalysis and imprisonment, "You people don't understand. I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with ME!" That was the darkest Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer-type sequence I've ever seen in a superhero movie. Jackie Earle Haley is perfect as that disturbed vigilante. And Jeffrey Dean Morgan (who looks a lot like Robert Downey, Jr. in the flashbacks and a lot like Javier Bardem when he's older) does an excellent job as cynical and selfish Comedian. His comment about the American Dream is perfect.

It's pretty violent and gory, but infinitely more mature than most superhero movies. I wish it had come out in December so it could have been nominated for an Oscar, but then again the Academy Awards seem to be severely out of touch with what people actually like, so it probably wouldn't have been nominated anyway.

I've also read the book and wasn't really expecting them to stick to the source material so closely. I just wanted a good story and got an excellent one. You probably won't see another superhero movie this mature again. Catch it in the theater while you can.

Alan Moore turns his royalties from the movies over to the artist, in this case Gibbons.

Yeah I noticed that in the credits. I was also wanting to see more of Rorsach in prison with the psychiatrist, esp the story of how he got his "face".  I think they changed the way he takes care of the murderer because Saw or one of those torute porn movies did the same thing, even though watchmen was written years earlier. I think too much story was cut out at the expense of extended Kung Fu battles, but I guess that's what a big blockbuster movie needs. I think he had the best line in the movie, great audience reaction to that one :smile:

Overall I really liked it, I could get all obsessive about the changes but it is what it is and its a good flick, probably see it again.

Let's give credit where credit is due: that exact method of torture-revenge was seen in Mad Max, which came out years before Watchmen. :wink:

And I agree with you on the change made to that scene in the movie. The original was much more effective and I was a little miffed that the entire end to the scene was changed to fill some kind of Eli Roth brutality shock moment. Not unlike how Nite Owl's impotence was treated as a joke rather than as a sign of the hero's "fall from power" after giving up his life as a hero. :thumbdown:

Has anyone posted this yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIhHema5PNg

Saw it today.  It was ... pretty good.  It's worth seeing.

I didn't like the actress who played Silk Spectre II (Malin Ackerman?) but I liked the character.  I loved Dan Drieberg (aka Nite Owl).  He seemed the most human of all of them.  Funny thing, though, whenever he was in costume, his acting talent just went to s**t.  Maybe that's what the director was telling him to do.  His scenes with Laurie Jupiter were probably my favorite parts of the movie.  (Yeah, I enjoyed the romantic subplot more than anything else.  Sue me.)  I'm not too sure what I thought of Rorschach.  There was a time when I would have loved him but now that I'm a little older, I can see that's he's not much more than a dangerous sociopath.  I didn't care at all for Dr. MonotonousManhattan.  He was just boring.  Veidt ... well, I dunno.  Part of me wants to hate him, part of me thinks I would have been on his side.

As for The Comedian, he was easily my favorite.  He seemed more human than any of them except Dan.  I think he had the best character arc.  Hell, I wish the movie had been about him.

The slow-mo seriously got on my nerves a few times.  The long stretch in which Dr. Manhattan kept droning on and on about his origin and such was excruciating.  (It's a good time to take a bathroom break.)

Taken as a whole, it's the best "comic book" movie I've seen in a long time, though I won't be watching it again any time soon.

I had never even heard of the Watchmen graphic novel until about a year ago.
I haven't read it and don't know much about it.  I did briefly flip through one recently at a local Barnes & Noble but other than that, I don't know much about the story.

What I do know is that it's set in an alternate universe or something and that only Dr. Manhattan actually has powers.

I'm thinking of going to see this in the next day or two.  Probably at a matinee showing.
Any advice for someone like me who knows almost nothing about the comic?

 

I saw this movie the day it came out, and I loved it.  This is also someone who read the comic, and wasn't disturbed at all by the changes. 

The advice I'd give to someone like you, Ash, is to first realize that it's a long movie.  It didn't feel long to me, but I heard a lot of grumbling from more casual moviegoers.  Also, don't go in expecting action every minute, like many other comic book movie fans were probably expecting...although the action sequences it does have balances things out nicely, I think.

When I think about it, though, Watchmen actually had more action in it than Iron Man (Though I liked that one too.)

I think Mad Max, or maybe Road Warrior, was playing on one of the many TV screens at the end of the movie, also one of the TV's said something like "operation SQUID".

The Road Warrior was playing, the bit where The Humungus shoots the radiator out of the big rig.  I think Mad Max was also playing on one of the other screens.

Yeah, I missed the Squid reference during my viewing but my mom-in-law told me about it afterwards. No doubt a *wink*wink* for fans of the comic. :wink:

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/485797 (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/485797)

Haha, best clip ever.*  If this were serious I'm pretty sure that Alan Moore would go on some sort of violent rampage, if he was so inclined.

Just follow the link and click "Watch this movie"

Enjoy.




*May not be best clip EVER but is still darn funny.

I just saw this on DVD and figured I'd chime in...SPOILERS ahead. 

Overall, its a very impressive film that doesn't stray too far away from the themes of it's source.  Visually, one of the best movies to come out in the last 20 years.  The casting was near perfect for every role and you can tell the cast did their homework. 

As for changes from the graphic novel; the beginning credit montage fit nicely as cliffnotes for the non-readers of the source material.  Although, I think if you were going into this cold turkey, much of the character's depth were immensely lost throughout.  I do not however like how they changed Rosarch's interaction with his shrink in the prison.  The sympathy his psychiatrist ended up having for him really added a lot to their scenes together in the novel.  That and Roasarch's dispatching of the child killer was much more chilling in the novel.  In the film it just seemed a bit over the top.  Of course I can see why they changed that to fit the run time and to Hollywoodize it.  I do have to admit I LOVED how they changed the ending.  It seem to tie things together much nicer blaming Manhattan rather than a hand crafted alien.  The alien to me was a bit silly in the novel. 

The one part of the film that completely fails for me is the soundtrack.  I don't think "hate" is a strong enough word.  Its like they grabbed a "Best Of...(insert decade here)" and put a song in every 10 minutes.  Towards the end I literally said to myself, "All we need is 'All Along The Watchtower' by Hendrix as Nightowl and Rosarch are flying into final battle".  Well my jaw didn't drop when they actually f'n played it.  Its a pity too because I really enjoyed the orchestral music but it gets lost too easily with the badly selected musical numbers. 

I would gladly watch this again. 

I dunno..  I thought the use of Unforgettable was good, as was the opening use of Bob Dylan.  The Philip Glass music (instrumentals only, of course) also fit very well. 

But some others parts were bad (Sounds of Silence, WTF?).  It was a mixed bag, I guess you could say.

On another note, my friend just got the Blu-Ray of Watchmen.  Director's Cut.  It came with a $10 off coupon for the "Ultimate Watchmen" set that is coming out.  I think that's probably the most insulting bit of advertising and double dipping in DVD/Bluray/LD history.

I feel much the same way. I always thought that Rorschach issue of the original miniseries was probably the best issue, and I think they sped through it in the movie wayyyyyy too fast. I was also completely disappointed by the way he dispatches the kid-killer, too. When I saw it, I thought maybe they wanted to avoid the whole "handcuffed to a pipe, armed with a hacksaw" thing just to avoid comparisons to Saw, but overall, very much a let-down there. I was distraught over having to miss out on the part where he just sits out there and watches the place go down in flames, while having that long monologue to himself (y'know the one: "blood on chest like dark new continent... knew then what makes cats cry like babies in the night... etc."). Also, like you, I definitely liked the change from the alien thing to the Manhattan energy signature thing. Everyone seems reeeeeally reverential towards the original comic (rightfully so, of course), but a little too much so, because I honestly think the new ending works MUCH better than the one from the book which, like you, I also thought was silly. I say the same thing in my review of it at Bearded Weirdo. I'm looking forward to watching the extended cut on DVD. I have a feeling that it's gonna be even better with all the missing stuff worked back in.

My opinion ?
It's a bit dull with a silly soundtrack.


Nuff said.

rorschard has the best parts, the opening credits are very good, and the sex scene is ridicolous.

The rest is boring.

thanks to this movie, I started reading graphic novels! :teddyr:
also, this is dark.  :teddyr:
but i could have done better if Dr. Manhattan was dress by his cock :lookingup: