Started By
Message
locked post

The Watchmen

Posted on 3/17/09 at 5:43 am
Posted by phelps4824
franklinton, la
Member since Sep 2008
890 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 5:43 am
I thought is sucked. Anybody else think so or am I alone in this.
Posted by Froman
Baton Rouge
Member since Jun 2007
36201 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 5:54 am to
SloFloPro does, but his opinion doesn't matter. I thought it did not live up to the books' potential, but could it have? I don't know. Wrong director, good cast, too many porno scenes.
Posted by Afreaux
Conway Bayou
Member since Aug 2007
47019 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 7:10 am to
I thought it was boring.
Posted by ctalati32
Member since Sep 2007
4060 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 8:01 am to
I thought it was alright, but if they would have cut about 25-35 min from it, it could have been good.
Posted by buzwa
Member since Sep 2006
2465 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 8:03 am to
It looks like I am in the minority, but I loved it.
Posted by Bucky
Las Vegas
Member since Nov 2008
2517 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 8:07 am to
quote:

It looks like I am in the minority, but I loved it.

+1. I read the book so the movie was better for me then it was for people who didn't read the book. I admit the movie is full of flaws but I enjoyed the cool visuals and the story. I enjoyed it (3 times already), but I can still see why others don't like it so much.
Posted by TIGERSTORM
parts unknown
Member since Feb 2009
4505 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 8:10 am to
quote:

It looks like I am in the minority, but I loved it.

I really liked it too. I went in with lowered expectations because I realized a lot was changed from the graphic novel to get it onto the screen. That being said I do think having previously read it helped a great deal.
Posted by BAMBAM
Biloxi, MS
Member since Mar 2008
2364 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 8:21 am to
ah the blue dick!

I didn't even notice it till halfway through the movie then it was there!!!

If they would have cut 45min out of the movie it probably would be okay.
Posted by The Levee
Bat Country
Member since Feb 2006
10677 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 8:35 am to
it had good cinematography and music, but was too fanboyish for me...
This post was edited on 3/17/09 at 8:36 am
Posted by Bucky
Las Vegas
Member since Nov 2008
2517 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 8:40 am to
quote:

it had good cinematography and music, but was too fanboyish for me...

All of my friends said the exact same thing. I see where you're coming from... whether or not someone read the book determines everything IMO (like most adaptations).

Regardless, the cinematography was great.
Posted by Leauxgan
Brooklyn
Member since Nov 2005
17324 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 9:05 am to
I liked it a lot. Saw it in an IMAX, so the audio/visuals were further heightened.
Posted by tubucoco
las vegas, nevada
Member since Oct 2007
32994 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 9:10 am to
yeah watching it in IMAX musta been an experience, Dr. Bluedick is awesome.
This post was edited on 3/17/09 at 9:19 am
Posted by booga
used to be maui
Member since Feb 2008
1469 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 9:13 am to
I saw it and it was alright. I have read the graphic so when I was driving home from the theatre I felt like the last 2 and 1/2 hours were pretty pointless. I have already seen the story in graphic representation from the graphic novel. It was just those same shots but in movie form. It felt like I was just rehashing what I had already done but in an inferior way. It wasn't bad but if I had to do it again I would have skipped it. I also found it weird that the first 2:30 stays so true to the book only to be dramatically changed. I know all the arguments on why the ending had to be changed but still it just was weird to me. The movie to me really shows what Alan Moore was talking about when he says alot of Hollywood and movies are just spoonfeeding us. It seemed to be the watchman being spoonfeed to us. Just read the graphic novel.
Posted by DanglingFury
Living the dream
Member since Dec 2007
20449 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 9:32 am to
quote:

+1. I read the book so the movie was better for me then it was for people who didn't read the book. I admit the movie is full of flaws but I enjoyed the cool visuals and the story. I enjoyed it (2 times), but I can still see why others don't like it so much
Posted by noonan
Nassau Bay, TX
Member since Aug 2005
36896 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 9:33 am to
i can't think of a movie i have seen recently that was better.
Posted by manwich
You've wanted my
Member since Oct 2008
52601 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 9:33 am to
quote:

+1. I read the book so


i'm reading it now
Posted by BhamTigah
Lurker since Jan 2003
Member since Jan 2007
14094 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 9:48 am to
I thought it was good, but not great. It was definitely worth the money and time. I have not read the graphic novel, and the story was not compelling enough to make me do so, but at least I was entertained for a few hours.
Posted by Eddie Vedder
The South Plains
Member since Jan 2006
4438 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 11:16 am to
quote:

+1. I read the book so the movie was better for me then it was for people who didn't read the book.


i've never read the book but really enjoyed the movie. i'm interested in going back to read the novel. my wife thought it was pretty boring, though.
Posted by iggle
Member since Oct 2007
2649 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 11:39 am to
quote:

I thought is sucked.


I thought is great.


seriously, I really liked it. I actually haven't met anyone yet who didn't like it, and I'm the only one I know who's read the book.
Posted by Bigmonkeylsu
Metry
Member since Oct 2008
3971 posts
Posted on 3/17/09 at 12:12 pm to
Holy crap Bucky and I agree
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram