The reason I put "review" in quotes is because this is not an official review. There is nothing professional about it. This is simply a copy of an email I sent to a friend who asked me what I thought about the movie. Rather than writing a serious review, I'm just going to be lazy and copy/paste the email. So that is the reason for the constant references to director Zach Snyder as "dude," as well as the "lol"s and possible profanity. :) So here ya go:
"I didn't really care for the movie. lol I wouldn't pay to see it again. I won't buy the DVD. And I certainly wouldn't pay to see a sequel unless I read a summary of the script first and thought it sounded good. Here are my issues:
For one, the guy who wrote the book, Alan Moore, wanted his name removed from the movie altogether. He didn't want to be associated with the movie. He said that the book wasn't really movie material and that a movie should have never been made. I REALLY agree with that for a couple reasons. First, the book is very time specific. It was very relevant in the time it was released, the events were related to real life events at the time, and the characters/costumes were very 80's-like. Other comics are not very time specific, they can take place in any time without any changes needing to be made to them (i.e. Spider-Man). "Watchmen" was extremely loyal to the original material (which is another issue I will get to in a minute), which made the movie feel very dated. It didn't feel like a 2009 movie based in 1985. It felt like a 1985 movie based in 1985. At the same time, you can't update the material without damn near completely abandoning the novel. So I would guess that's why Moore said the movie shouldn't be made. Snyder made the best movie he could I suppose, but it just felt so dated to me. This would have been the shit in 1985, though. lol
Secondly, Snyder is called a "visionary" director. I know why, and I kind of agree, but he's only a "visionary" in the sense that he's great with visuals - and that's a complete misuse of the meaning of the word. A visionary is like a pioneer, or someone whose creativity is ahead of its time. Their imagination is unrivaled. Snyder displayed absolutely none of that in making this movie. He used the book as a storyboard, completely copying everything and using no creative license whatsoever. Normally this doesn't bother me, but when we're talking about a graphic novel, and dude is matching up shots in his movie with panels in the graphic novel, that is the complete opposite of a visionary. With books, we're allowed to use our imagination to create what the scene looks like in our head. A real visionary, if he's making a book into a movie, will present those images in a new and creative way. Snyder was already limited in making a movie based on a graphic novel, but to constantly copy entire panels is just really lame.
Third, since he was SO loyal to the source material, again, this made the movie EXTREMELY boring to me. I knew exactly what was going to happen next, down to a tee. It's not like I knew IN GENERAL what was going to happen... there weren't even any surprising shots since dude copied the friggin panels. Combine this with how 80's the movie felt, and you're set for a long 3 hrs.
Fourth, too much blue penis. There was a lot of gayness in "Milk," but it was necessary for the movie...it's about gay people. But why was Dr. Manhattan walking around naked for more than half the time? Sometimes, he had some sort of underwear thing on. So if it's OK some of the time, why isn't OK for the whole movie? This kind of plays into the whole "Snyder might be gay" thing. I didn't feel this way when I saw it, and I think it's necessary to the movie, but some critics of "300" say he was very "gracious" in the way he depicted the men and that the whole movie kind of had a gay feel to it. Again, I have no problem with this when it's necessary. But having Dr. Manhattan walk around naked most of the time doesn't make sense to me when it was apparently OK for him to have underwear on some of the time. It seemed like blue penis for the sake of blue penis, and that's not a good look. lol
There were things I did like though. 1.) His visuals ARE SICK. I will give him that. When he did add something, which was very rare, it was sick. (The extended fight scene at the beginning of the movie, for instance) 2.) The violence...very good shit. 3.) Rorshach. Dude who played him did a great job, ESPECIALLY when he was NOT wearing the mask. There's some criticism about the movie in regard to the way some of the important lines were delivered, most of them I agree with (Dr. Manhattan's decision to change his mind while on Mars, for instance. That was a really well written scene in the book, but it came off kind of lame in the movie). But every single cool Rorshach line was delivered as good, if not better, in the movie as it was in the book. (Particularly the line in the prison after he hems up that black guy. It was a sweet line in the book, but 10 times better in the movie.) 4.)The story in and of itself is the shit. It's a great story. I try to tell people it's not really a "superhero" movie. It's more of a whodunit/character study. The overall statement made at the end of the movie is a great topic for discussion. 5.)The ending change was AWESOME. Fanboys of the novel are pissed because it's the one thing Snyder changed, and it's an important thing. But the novel ending is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE for a movie. The reviews from the average filmgoer have been average as is, they would have HATED IT if he kept the original ending. lol
So yeah, my overall thoughts are thumbs in the middle. I still haven't heard anything from people who did NOT read the book first, so I'd like to see what they think since my opinion is obviously tainted by me knowing the story/events beforehand."
