Late to the party as usual, but tonight I saw Watchmen finally. I liked it. I didn't love it, but I thought it was a good adaptation of the GN.

I liked the casting a lot. The more I see of Patrick Wilson, the more I like him. And, wow, Jackie Earl Haley - what brilliant casting that was. He was awesome. As for Matthew Goode, he's much more attractive as a brunette. He's hot, imho. If you get a chance to see My Family and Other Animals, he's finer than frog hair in that one.

Now I really liked the GN and was wondering how it was going to translate into film and I was mostly pleased. There were some actual sets in this film which was nice. For some reason I was expecting the 300 or Sin City treatment where most of the film felt like it was actors in front of a greenscreen.

I actually liked the credits montage. It was stunning, imho.

I also liked the music choices in the film. They must have paid a lot for some of those songs. I mean, Dylan and Hendrix... those must have cost a fortune.

Lots of blue peni. Wow! I was surprised that they showed Dr. Manhattan's "him" as much as they did.

I'm glad they cut the pirate ship story. It would have seemed like a sore thumb in the film, because it kinda felt that way in the GN. That part reminded me of Stephen King in a way.

I was bugged by the wigs and old-age makeup in this film. Silk Spectre I has terrible old-age makeup and Veidt had a bad blond wig.

All in all, I liked it. Rorschach made the movie for me.

I finally finished reading the GN ... and, for the most part, to my surprise ... I liked the movie better.

Wow.


The parts of the story that really take flight for me are when the retired heroes swing back into action, both Dan and Laurie, and then Dan and Rorschauch ... and also Rorschach's stint in prison. All of which were better and more lively in the film. (Um, I can't believe Rorschach's best line was just thrown away as an "off-screen" re-tell by someone else in the GN ... and that's just one illustrative symptom of why these sections were more flat in the book.)


The book was best in the Jon segments ... both when he's tripping through time as a great way to tell his story, and his stint on Mars.

Jon's backstory was told very well in the film, but the Mars stuff was meh. Both parts excellent in the book, and the only parts I found better than their movie counterparts.


I've gotta say, now that I've read it and seen it, I don't know what all the broohaha was about. As I've said, I'm a sucker for retired superhero stories. And I LOVE the world created where all of them are masked vigilantes, but human ... and the ONE with Superpowers does not have something retarded like elasticity or invisibility ... but is rather a true Superman of all-around enhancements.


BUT ... I don't think the story did much with this world. The denoument was trite and disappointing. Jon's story arc devolved into insignificance and, yes, disappointment.


Nice blue penis, though.


I give the whole project 3 stars ... and, unbelieveably, find the movie a better deal than the book. Wow.

This (I believe, the fanboys need to back me up) is the original retired superhero story, which is why it was such a big deal. All the others took their cue from this one.

As for the rest of it, we disagree, I thought it was a fun read, kept me hooked....though I admit I have very little to compare it to as I don't read comics. I'm sure some of the best stuff went right over my head.

Curious - which "best line" are you referring to?

It's like the Beatles.

Some time back, The Moonie Juniors did not get what all the fuss was about in regards to the Beatles. So I made a CD full of period music:

Da Doo Ron Ron, One fine day, Figertips Pt. 2, Under the boardwalk, Walk like a man, etc...

And in the middle of it all I added: A Hard day Night and Please Please Me.

The contrast is striking.

I liked the sex scene, btw. And in the dream sequence, you get to see Nite Owl II's schwanzstucker, too.

Just saying.

I mean, it's not just the gay thang about seeing d!cks. It's just that they rarely show frontal male nudity in mainstream U.S. movies. So when you do see one on film (even though it's blue) it's like seeing a unicorn in the woods.

I wonder if the studio and the ratings board found it less objectionable because it was a CGI penis instead of a real one?

There are two penises on view in this thing? Hmm. I've never seen a blue one. And I don't know who Nite Owl is, but, hm. Maybe I will go.

No, you're right, it really isn't. ;)

Apparently you can have some amount of it as long as it is completely flaccid. Jason Segal was on Fresh Air last week and talked about his frontal nudity in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. His joke was that for ratings it was vital it be completely flaccid but for his own ego it was very important that it not be completelyflaccid.

I'd heard the same about Dewey Cox, which also had non-sexual male frontal nudity on display for longer than quick glimpses.

So in movies with non-sexual female frontal nudity, do the producers have to send proof to the MPAA that she isn't wet?

Volunteering for the job.