[martok2112]

Originally Posted by MonsieurHood

Manhattan wasn't the only one getting nude, and that and the language getting rough from time to time, and the sometimes gory violence gave the film it's "R" rating. But I don't think they could have been as faithful to the Graphic Novel if they hadn't shown those things. One of the most important things about the costumed heroes in "Watchmen" were their flaws, failings and faults. "Watchmen" was one of the first Graphic Novels to show superheroes as something besides perfect boy scouts. That detail comes shining through in this movie, believe me! It's a very well made film and surprisingly with all these new faces, a very well acted film as well. This movie could give us a new crop of stars in Hollywood. The film is a good film, and very entertaining, but also disturbing and unsettling as well.
Be prepared for a shock or two. I don't recommend this film for children under 16 or so. Little kids would be scarred for life at some of the subject matter and violence. Some of these "heroes" don't act heroically. When you're used to Superman helping everyone and getting cats out of trees, and Batman throwing those kicks and punches to save lives, seeing what some of the so called "heroes" in "Watchmen" do could be very confusing to the very young.

Aye, the nature of "superhero" or "hero" stories is the "shining white knight" who only has a couple of minor flaws worthy of dismissal. Superman, Batman, etc.

A story as I understand Watchmen to be is about heroes that are also very much human, subject to the flaws and frailties that afflict many other humans. A touch of realism in that department can be confusing for idealistic young'n's.

A friend of mine who works at the local Best Buy and I touched on that very point. He said a lot of the folks who came out of the theater after viewing Watchmen said it sucked. We think it's largely because they expected Watchmen to be another "superhero" movie, and they got more than they bargained for.

Apparently, the movie didn't get its R rating for nothin'.

[Gary Seven]

I've yet to see it because the Arnold Sports Festival is in town.

Just read on IMDb the movie brought in $55.7 million during the weekend. And it's rated 8.4/10.

[MonsieurHood]

Originally Posted by MigueldaRican

Watchmen is almost a parody, albeit serious, of the traditional superhero story.

Don't believe the critics. If you go to rottentomatoes, take note of ratings. The t-meter critics is 65%, the (so called) top critics is 43%, meanwhile the rt community is 71%. So I deffinitely wouldn't listen to the critics especially when one of the negative critics they feature on their t-meter was a gay critic who thought it only relevant to comment on the movie's apparent homoerotic content and Dr. Manhattan's wang.

The movie is very good, probably one of the best comic adaptations ever. Ironically one of the negative reviews actually said the movie sticks too close to the original graphic novel (which is something you may or may not take as encouragement really). It is NOT FOR KIDS. Something which may seem misleading from the trailers. Parents viewing the trailer may see the familiar superhero costumes and explosively entertaining sequences and think, "Yeah, this looks like a fun escapist movie for my kids to see." WRONG! Sure the movie has its fair share of the typical comic book movie moments: fight scenes, explosions, cg special effects.

But there is nothing typical about the plotline and even most of the scenes. There is explicit gore, abuse and attempted rape, gratuitis nudity, an explicit and prolonged sex scene. The situations may be hard for the kiddies to handle as well. A graphic scene portraying the JFK assassination. Many of the cruel deeds mentioned here are carried out by someone labeled as a superhero... not the villain, which may confuse kids. To that end, the film's conclusion may be morally hard to explain to children.

This movie is great for the adults. It is complex and a very mature and dramaticly realistic approach to superheroes. This is what may have earned the movie such mixed reviews. Dark Knight is very mature and realistic as well, but the battle between good and evil is still very clearly laid out there. Watchmen represents a very gray moral debate, and it's successfully executed.

Some of the so-called heroes in "Watchmen" weren't heroes at all. The Comedian was an assasin and a murderer, and Ozymandias was a mass murderer on an incredible scale. Even Dr. Manhattan committed murder.
It was almost as if they thought their power gave them the right to do
anything they wanted to anyone they wanted to do it to,like some kind
of all powerful Pharoah. I know that was the idea of the Graphic Novel
and the film to show that, and I appreciate that fact for what it is. If, in fact enhanced
humans existed (and science tells us this is right around the corner people, so prepare!), this would more than likely be the case unless you gave
them enhanced morals to go along with their enhanced physical abilities.
However, I must say that as an ordinary human, with no enhancements whatsoever, I prefer the old Spider-Man axiom that "With great power, comes great responsibility". Apparently, the costumed crimefighters of
"Watchmen" never heard of Peter Parker, either that, or Stan Lee never
existed in their timeline to create him. I suppose it's the same as the very
wealthy and politicians. When they finally realize what the scope of their wealth or position of authority is, some of them use that power for evil, corrupt purposes that do a lot of harm to others. Life lesson 101, I suppose.

[FanWriter45]

I have to agree with Martok on this one: I fear that the movie, although incredibly well made, is going to suffer at the boxoffice simply because "it's too hip for the room." (To use a comics term for when you bomb because you're telling George Carlin/Lenny Bruce level humor in front of an audiance composed of Larry the Cable Guy/ Carrot Top fans.)

Personally, I loved it. I intend to see it again at least once more before it gets out of the theatres. I'll get the DVD. (And I plan on getting a screen grab of Silhouette and her gf kissing as she comes back from the war... a couple of lesbian friends, whom I went to the screening with, want me to print it off as a poster.)

Oh, and just one little detail... one thing they did differently from the book that absolutely delighted me... when they pull back from the Martian crater for the big reveal... THAT was a nice touch, to incorperate THAT particular, VERY REAL martian feature into the movie. It fit perfectly into the film's theme and visuals. Funny, isn't it? That we should discover something like that while the movie was still in production...

[jla1987]

Originally Posted by FanWriter45

Oh, and just one little detail... one thing they did differently from the book that absolutely delighted me... when they pull back from the Martian crater for the big reveal... THAT was a nice touch, to incorperate THAT particular, VERY REAL martian feature into the movie. It fit perfectly into the film's theme and visuals. Funny, isn't it? That we should discover something like that while the movie was still in production...

That was actually also in the original comic.

[cjopbj]

I spoke with a 16 year old boy right after he saw the movie. He has the book and was looking forward to the seeing it on screen. His comment was "long". Almost 3 hours. He didn't say that after Lord of the Rings.

But he liked the Star Trek and Terminator trailers so it wasn't a total loss.

[Saquist]

so is it yay or nay?

[jla1987]

I say it's a yay, but the length will make anyone's mileage vary.

[Saquist]

25.6 million on the first day is really good for a rated R film.
They would have done far better if it was P-13.
(they never learn)

[jtrek79]

star trek will bring 100 million by the end of the weekend