LogFAQs > #927505106

Aaantlion posted...

Alright, I'll bite, what did you consider the flaws.

There are a number of scenes where the movie actually tries to adhere to the comic too literally and it messes with the pacing and flow a bit (ie, a case where adaptation has to compromise to the new medium and not just copy everything over verbatim). Ironically, the movie also hurts to some degree because some things happen that lack context because other scenes from the comic were cut for time (which goes back to a case of knowing what to cut and what NOT to cut - which is why you need to understand the material at more than a superficial level). All of that feels like it stems from Snyder only understanding the source on its most superficial level, and picking scenes because they "look cool" and not necessarily based on their importance to the overall story.

Other than that, the biggest flaw is that, in at least some cases, the acting performances aren't quite what they need to be. Rorschach, Manhattan, and the Comedian are great choices, Nite Owl is serviceable, but Ozymandias tends to play his role a bit too hammy for what he's supposed to be (which kind of makes his turn more obvious in advance), and Silk Spectre... is what it is.

The one HUGE complaint most comic fans have is changing the ending from the giant space squid to being Dr. Manhattan, which can fall apart if you really pick the logic apart - but that's the one criticism I actually tend to disagree with, because I think it works better aesthetically and is more concise that way, especially since I think the squid would look goofy as fuck on screen and would undercut a lot of the movie (again, a case where understanding when to deviate from the source and when not to helps the product - and one where Snyder actually did something positive.

It's not a BAD movie. But it's not really a GREAT movie, either. It sort of hovers around above average - though that admittedly probably ranks it higher in comic movie terms, because there've been so many stinkers.

And to be perfectly honest, it's the only comic movie Snyder has been involved with that wasn't painfully bad. Other than 300, of course, but that's helped by the fact that it's almost entirely visual with almost no subtle subtext whatsoever. Again, Zack likes visuals. The thinky stuff, not so much.

Actually, in retrospect, most of his non-comic movies are kind of terrible as well, so it kind of begs the question why someone would put him in charge of one of the most potentially profitable franchises in the history of film. I get that the original 300 was popular and made money, but that was a long time ago.



Aaantlion posted...

Otherwise, I've seen Thor 1 & 3, IM 1&2, Cap 1, Civil War, Doctor Strange, Avengers 1, and everything falls way, way short.

I'd easily rank every single one of those way, way, way, way higher than Watchmen. Except maybe IM2.

Hell, I'd also throw Avengers 3 and 4, GotG1 and 2, Cap 2, Ant-Man, 4 out of 7 Spider-Man films, 3 out of 7 X-Men films, and the first Blade into that mix. Maybe Blade 2, if I'm having a really good day and am in JUST the right mood.

About the only thing Watchmen really has going for it is high concept, but it's not even the film's own original concept, and it isn't really done all THAT well. Worse, what was an incredibly influential deconstruction 30 years ago feels a lot less meaningful after a thousand other stories have come along since doing the exact same premise. Which blunts some of its edge (which probably helped contribute to it ultimately bombing at the box office).

Again, it's not a BAD movie. But it's not really a GREAT movie, either. And ultimately, it's mostly just a forgettable movie.
---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family