I can understand Moore wanting nothing to do with Hollywood but why give the go ahead for adaptations. I'm assuming he must do.
Right. Well the release of the film has piqued my interest in the man and I'll be ordering my first graphic novel in Watchmen.I'm not certain but the impression I get is that he actually doesn't have control over it.
Exactly right. There's a bit at the beginning where Evey nips out for a cappuncio.Yeah. Having read the comics again recently, I was also struck how 'glossy' the film looked in comparison. It lost the 1984 style British grimness in translation.
= MeFrom the reviews I've read it seems the opinion is polarized: either the critic loves the book and dislike Zach Snyder's commercialization of it (changing the ending, putting in matrix-esque fight scenes, etc.
= Youor they hate the movie because they hate the book (The Washington Post, The New Yorker)
Dear god, this part could not have been any worse. It was so bad, I started thinking maybe they were trying to take the piss or something. Then I realized, no, it's most likely just one more brilliant concept conceived by another idiot who is told he's a visionary.... and the entire soundtrack
most of your criticism is valid, boombox, but most of those points such as cliches and stereotypes and cardboard cutouts and "soul-lessness" can be applied to most fiction out there, be they novels, films, or comics. what work doesn't want to impress the audience? and if you want to make the distinction between that which tries too hard and that which doesnt: there is surely a place for grand theatricality, and works which try to impress in obvious ways (as there is for works which are subtle and understated).The film felt as empty as the comic, whose philosophical and political points are cliched and simplistic - the kind you read daubed on the walls of a university toilet. It's a pose, a pose that, when you set it in a real context (parallel timeline - Nixon ,Vietnam, Cold War etc.), has no resonance: the world was not and is not like that. There are heroes and good people everywhere, and love and profound emotion.
What we have here are some navel-gazing vigilantes tediously musing on their broken lives/souls while trying to save a world that they don't actually seem that bothered about, a world we are given only cynical and stereotypical glimpses of: rioters, paedophiles, the Doctor's selfish wife, the onlookers during a rape/murder.
Nite Owl's reaction to the massacre - putting his hand to his chin and thinking a bit - sums up the whole exercise, I think. The snide, offhand way it has with its Hiroshima allegory (Laurie's comment: "that's all they wanted, tandoori to go") is particularly irritating too.
It is a comic made to impress: with its twist on the superhero myth (hardly revolutionary), with its oh-so-learned use of popular and classical culture references (Dylan, Alexander, Juvenal, Jung etc.), its sub-noir language and so on. The book doesn't seem to care about anybody or anything. The Watchmen are impotent, the people are sinful and the world will die whatever. We are doomed blah blah blah.