So, I wanted to start this Watchmen thread, but I'm kind of busy right now (party starting in 5 minutes), I will just copy and paste my Livejournal and comic forum review/rants into this topic and leave them for discussion and debate.
Spoiler heavy from here on.
So, with it's rich character development, expansive universe, constant flashbacks, hugely contraversial subject matter and excessive use of radioactive penis; how did Solid Snake, Zack Synder and a bunch of actors and crew manage to make this 12 issue epic into a movie?
Jon's penis made the cut. You saw it 3 times in a single frame in one scene.
Anywho, serious time. For the most part, they just went with the storyline from the comic, skimming heavily off of the top. This means, of course, a lot has to go. I'm certain a lot of it will return for the directors cut, but the theatrical is the one I watched, and I'll mention why that's a big deal later.
To be honest, I didn't miss many of the scenes too much. If we're talking actual SCENES, rather than plots, quotes or ideas (most of which are kept but shifted. For instance Doc Manhattan mentions his father's decision to ditch watchmaking during the interview, turning a potential scene into a line of dialogue without losing the idea behind it). The majority of the bigger scenes which vanished were what I'd call "doubles", mostly involving Rorscach having two scenes in a place and only one of them remaining (visiting Dan's, Molochs, psychitrist and Happy Harry's). I don't miss the scenes much, though I'm a bit sad that there was no fridge jumping.
Regarding flashbacks/backstory. It's mostly glossed over, though Comedian and Manhattan are given full treatments doing the best to emulate their comic counterparts.
I pause to state, Manhattan's flashbacks on Mars are by and large the best part of the movie from a fan of the comic's perspective. Feel free to disagree, but for a scene I was worried about, it came out perfectly.
Comedian's flashbacks weren't so great, not due to content, for they captured it all perfectly, but for conTEXT. The purpose of the flashbacks (Crimebusters/Watchmen first meeting, Vietnam, '77 police riots) are to paint the altered history of the Watchmen universe, while giving Eddie development. I feel they didn't do enough to push the severity of those events in history. Some of the housemates felt confused and annoyed during those scenes as they didn't understand what they were supposed to be drawing from the scenes.
The final thing I'll address on the "adaption" portion is added scenes. The first 30 minutes especially has a load of scenes designed to ease the viewer into the universe. This mostly fits heavy handed explinations as to the Cold War crisis, the nature of the Minutemen (I don't recall hearing the term, though) and... well, trying to inject action into the movie.
So, now to the movie as a whole.
By Blake's funeral, I became wery of the music choices. There were moments when an establishing shot would take about 3 minutes just to play out some witty musical segway (Blake's funeral, for instance, used "The Sounds of Silence") which some editors must have thought was too vital to cut short.
It's cute in small doses and lets you know, constantly, that we're in the 80's, but it's distracting me by the time I'm noticing "This Much is True" on Veidt's office PA system while the assassin is attacking... and I was just about fed up when an even slower than the slow version of Hallalejah (how many versions ARE there?) playing while Laurie and Dan have 4 minutes of uncomfortable sex in Archie.
There's a kind of cool use of All Across the Watchtower at the climax of the movie, but I feel the music guys were looking for an actual climax of the movie to put it with, and realizing that it's all resolved with talking, just put it when Archie is about to crash in Antartica.
That's my biggest complaint for the entire movie, though.
The tone has been amped up in violence, half because 300 kind of made it Synder's trademark and half to pander to the comic book crowd who may not be ready for a movie which echos comic mythos and tries to write them as a mature murder mystery, rather than a battle of the week. The prison break out scene is about the only time the "let's be comic heroes!" idea seems played out and even then, Dan and Laurie are basically Matrix'ing the inmates.
Slow-mo also exists. 80% of the time it's not a problem. Having Blake jump off of Archie for 30 seconds or having the burning building explode for no reason seemed a bit gratuitious.
I know the directors cut will exist, so I'll keep it slow on this. The incidental New York characters don't get screen time, but do exist. The important thing about this, in context with the theatrical cut, is that we are not introduced to New Frontiersmen to get why Rorschach handed them his journal and why the ending should exist. Also, when New York is destroyed the Bernies embrace as they are swallowed by the blast, a tear jerking scene, though we wont really know the full extent of why we should care for their characters until their parts are put back in.
I'd say the first 30 minutes of the movie were a bit shaky, perhaps bloated from having too much in them with little breaks. I really could have gone without the extended intro credits (which are longer than the ending credits) and had some more level pacing. When Jon gets to Mars, up until the prison break, everything feels fine. Then the ending feels just a bit flat without the proper development of Ozy's character and plot.
I heard people in the audience uncomfortably mummering when Bubastis first appeared, as it seemed like we should know why a giant lynxcatthing is following him about.
But, as I say, Directors Cut will fix those minor niggles.
Also, Laurie's revealation at the end regarding her father feels a bit forced without proper context. I should ask my housemates what they thought about it.
Acting wise, Rorschach was incredible. The moments of panic and rage were well played out and he was able to make Walter's gravel voice sound natural without the mask on, something my inner monologue hasn't even been able to achieve since I first read.
Dan was great, played the mid-life crisis style unconfidence very well. He seemed the most human of the group, which is what he is.
Jon was also very well done, his voicing was perfect for the apathy, bemusement and wonder the character switched between. I feel sad, as his part was overshadowed by his dong, which showed the mere audacity of appearing so often that it stole every scene it was in.
Laurie. I'm afraid as pretty as the actress is, she does not do much with the part. This is half because she seems to be trying to be a female lead, and not an absoloute +++#@ as she is in the comic and because the script basically handed all of her character development to Jon. Her backstory is literally plucked out of her head so Jon can tell her (the audience) and cue her reacting without reflecting. Felt cheap.
Ozy, well. He had his badass moments, but I was just distracted by how he changed from being American to French depending on how super villainish he was trying to be. I am not the only one who noticed this, it's fairly obnoxious. What nationality is the actor?
Comedian played his part so damn well, I almost forgot to mention him because, well he is.
Speaking of "Comedian" they really ramped up the allusions to jokes, gags and the world being a farce. When Ozy outright called his plan a "practical joke" I wanted to know if the script writer knew what subtlety was. Then I remembered he was Solid Snake. And Solid Snake knows no subtlety.
I'm being hard on it with this review, but I hope it reflects my love. The Mars flashbacks, Rorschach vs police and the riot were superb. I enjoyed the movie so much more than I thought I would AND I know I'll enjoy it more when it's DVDized with the added footage.
The last thing I should note. The plot change. It runs throughout the entire movie and, you know what, I like it.
The comic called on us to have to believe the world would stop to "fight" an alien threat which didn't exist. What were they going to do, shoot missiles into space?
The movie gives them a tangiable enemy they do know and fear. Jon.
I just wish they had Jon agree to televize a warning to humanity. Not only would this complete an allusion to "The Day The Earth Stood Still" which existed in the original comic but would have made mankind's arms standstill less of a "defend ourselves from hidden evils" to a "lay down arms, least we are punished by this god among men".
So, yeah. Take that comic purists. I prefer the movie ending and think it wasn't ballsy enough. It should have gone one further.
Anywho. I think I have said more than my piece. See it or not, it's a damn fine movie, just lacking a lot of neccessary scenes to make us CARE about the consequences when they happen.
Oh and there needed to be more Walter-Dan moments, especially when they went out of their way to make sure Dan reacted to Rorschach's death.
That's all. Thanks for enduring that long ass review.
=
Replying to someone who hated the new ending, I wrote the following:
"I'll play Devil's advocate right now, not only praising this new ending, but using the source material to back up it's logic.
Altough I will say that I think the ending wasn't ballsy enough in it's change, it should have gone one more.
The movie had a number of scenes showing humanities joint fear of Jon, the movie only scene of the news reporter correcting his quote from "The Superman is real and he's American" to "God is real"
It fit with the themes of the book which included the Vietnamese hailing him as a God while surrendering.
It's a weak link, but the source material showed humanity could view him as a God, the movie just made sure we knew they did.
Then the Manhattan bombs. Humanity has a known enemy. Someone who ended a war in a single week. The indestructable man.
Now.
What SHOULD have happened, was Jon should have agreed to the plan and televized a statement that he will destroy the Earth if it is not peaceful.
Sounds a bit like "The Day The Earth Stood Still"? Perfect! The novel itself made that allusion, showing a marquee for the movie in the debris of nuked New York.
If the original GN can use the world peace methods of that movie as inspiration for the eventual outcome, I see nothing cheap in doing it again.
If the movie outright stated that humanity knew Jon was watching and wouldn't tolerate their $@@$#*+*, I'd have bought that 100 times more than "Let's fight... some... invisible force. Which doesn't really exist"
Alas, despite how themeatically and logically it would work and how the moviegoing public are ready to accept that preachy peace ending, I haven't found anyone who agrees.
People correctly state that Jon wouldn't go through with it, Ozy wouldn't go for a plan which rellied on an unpredictable aid and such.
But, yeah. It would seal the holes in the re-written ending and make the "peace" and more importantly the threat Rorschach's journal poses seem all the more tangiable than the flimsy and vague mirage of peace we're left with in the novel.
But, eh. I was prepared for the change going in. My bigger concerns for the movie were my problems with scene pacing."
-
That's all. Get talking, people. Or I shall will lazer breath you.
Beat me to it. I was about to start a thread. Here's what it would have said:
Alan Moore and others have said that Watchmen was "unfilmable." I always thought this was silly. Making a movie adaptation isn't "filming" a book (or comic). You make something from the ground up.
Take Lord of the Rings. Tolkien's LotR novels were very much about their own textuality. What I mean by this is that the whole thing was wrapped up in the concept of presenting the history and literature of a fictional world. Middle-Earth was a world that Tolikien created not as a place where his characters could live, but where his languages could live, and the linguistic and textual aspect of what he's trying to do permeates the novel. "Filming" Lord of the Rings would have been stupid and would have made no sense. That's why Peter Jackson didn't do it. Instead, he built a movie, that virtually ignored all of that textuality stuff and focused on the cinematic elements that could be brought out of the story: big, sweeping battles, effects shots, character moments. These weren't the point of the novels, but they are the point of the movies, and I'd call Peter Jackson's adaptations a huge success.
So, Alan Moore's objection that Watchmen is "unfilmable" should be irrelevant nonsense. Because nobody in their right mind would actually try to "film" Watchmen. Except they did. That's exactly what Zack Snyder did. The core of his Watchmen movie is the attempt to slavishly recreate individual panels of David Gibbons's artwork and bring them to life. Which he does, successfully, and it results in this terrible freak of artistry, some kind of bizzare half-movie-half-comic chimera that makes little sense and is boring except when it's so terrible you want to laugh.
What made the Watchmen comic great was the way it played with the medium of comics in terms of content, form, and the relationship between the two. You take that content out of its original form and it's a blob. An uninteresting and unintelligent blob. And that's what this movie is, a blob.
So in my opinion, the problem with this adaptation is the general core idea that Zack Snyder chose as his guiding light. I could go on and on about the terrible acting and the bizarre ill-fitting music choices and the awful sex scene and the way they completely fail to sell the "tragic" ending and the uninspired directorial style but none of that really matters because the movie has problems that are much bigger than all of that.
COULD a good Watchmen movie have been made? Maybe. I think Tarantino might have been able to pull it off if he had tried. I don't know. But regardless, this was not the way to go about doing it.
I wish they would have shown the home life of Rorschach's psychitrist, it painted a good image of the effects he has on people. I also wish they would have added scenes with the New Frontiersman, it helps clairfy the ending and my belief of what happens after they recive Rorschach's journal.
FTW, my belief is that, the newspaper does print his journal, but no one of any real importance reads the paper and Rorscach's journal just becomes a crazy theroy.
Haha! Apparently Doc Manhattan's penis is like...the most talked about character in the movie. Even more so than the ol' Doc himself. =P Seriously...like...what's the big deal? Honestly...like...what should they have done, crop every scene that might've shown below his waist? Lame! I know nothing at all about Watchmen, but from my understanding and interpretation[which im sure is pretty far off] Dr. Manhattan is about as close to a god as any of the other Watchmen. And as we learned from the Greeks...gods don't wear clothes. Duh! But there's like sooooooooo much I want to say about this movie, it would take like a page to let it all out. But my gosh...I LOVE the characters. Rorschach has got to be my favorite though. Doc Manhattan is definitely a very close second. How he was so detached from humanity...was like...awestriking. So well done too. But oh my gosh! Like...OOO.EM.GEE!! Ozy is crazy awesome. Even his metrosexuality was done in such a way that it rocked. =P
Ok all jokes aside...the depth this movie went to totally surpirsed me. As i've stated...I know nothing about Watchmen[first time I had ever even heard it was when they showed the trailer at Dark Knight last summer]. I went into the movie expoecting your "typical comic-book movie"...yays for that. Talk about being blindsided. I got to experience the movie with an absolutely incorrect outlook. I want to go see it again. But there're so many other movies coming out in May...I gotta start saving up. =P As for the ending...I did want it to take another direction, but I was generally pleased. Most definitely getting this on Blu-Ray the day it releases. 
I expected a lot of that. From what I hear it sounds a lot like the Hitchhiker's Guide movie: faithful but without the minor things that make it what it is. Surprisingly, the greatest praise seems to be coming from people who didn't read the comic and thus are being introduced to the great concepts rather than comparing the experience.
The Hitchhiker's Guide movie featured near verbatim copies of some of my favorite scenes... but they just were not funny. And surprisingly, the best parts of the movie were things that weren't in the book at all, such as Marvin using the point of view gun and the excellent music.
Don't forget, Swanson, that there is a good 35 minutes of deleted footage (Hollis' fate and the coffee aboard Archie were hinted at existing in the movie) which will be back in the directors cut.
Given we see the psychitrist aswell as 2 Bernies (I teared up when they embraced ;.; ) during the final New York scene, I'm sure they'll flesh him out enough for us to care about his demise.
I expected a lot of that. From what I hear it sounds a lot like the Hitchhiker's Guide movie: faithful but without the minor things that make it what it is. Surprisingly, the greatest praise seems to be coming from people who didn't read the comic and thus are being introduced to the great concepts rather than comparing the experience.
The Hitchhiker's Guide movie featured near verbatim copies of some of my favorite scenes... but they just were not funny. And surprisingly, the best parts of the movie were things that weren't in the book at all, such as Marvin using the point of view gun and the excellent music.
Great comparison. A lot of things in the Hitchhiker's Guide movie were fantastic: the guide animations, the cameo of the original TV Marvin, the frequent appearances of sculptures of Douglas Adams' nose, the mural on the Heart of Gold. Clearly these details were made with a lot of love for the source material. But the soul of the Hitchhiker's Guide franchise was just missing. The problem with Watchmen isn't exactly the same, but it's quite similar.
Regarding Jon's junk, I'll go detailed.
In the novel, he starts off wearing clothes all of the time, a full one piece black suit as his outfit, which lowers to a unitard and then briefs by Vietnam. The change is symbolic of his growing detachment from humanity. As he sees the universe on a subatomic level with past and future as one, he cannot relate to anyone anymore and slowly becomes withdrawn and formalities such as clothes are lost.
It's a subtle transition and speaks great volumes about the character.
Alas, subtle allusions are mostly gone from the movie adaption, judging from a lot of the reviews I've read, this was a good decision. Most people cannot tangiably grasp the movie as it stands, with it's ambiguity spelled out. How would the world have reacted to the complex and unforgivingly subtle novel presented in movie form.
I mentioned to Trish that the unitard during the Crimebuster meeting would have helped drive the idea and helped people grasp the pionancy of his nudity, but in a comic you can blatantly see his clothing transcition between panels. It is noticable. I'm not sure if movie audiences care what he was wearing in the past 3 scenes and how it related to what he's wearing now. It's a phenomenom that I read about that the mind does not conciously recognize major changes (such as the subtle withdrawl of Jon's wardrobe) if we do not percieve it changing.
In the comic it's all on one page. You see how different it is. A movie. Not so much.
So, yeah. Jon's penis is important. But a movie cannot really project how and THANKFULLY Solid Snake wasn't dumb enough to vocalize it.
Regarding Jon's junk, I'll go detailed.
In the novel, he starts off wearing clothes all of the time, a full one piece black suit as his outfit, which lowers to a unitard and then briefs by Vietnam. The change is symbolic of his growing detachment from humanity. As he sees the universe on a subatomic level with past and future as one, he cannot relate to anyone anymore and slowly becomes withdrawn and formalities such as clothes are lost.
It's a subtle transition and speaks great volumes about the character.
Alas, subtle allusions are mostly gone from the movie adaption, judging from a lot of the reviews I've read, this was a good decision. Most people cannot tangiably grasp the movie as it stands, with it's ambiguity spelled out. How would the world have reacted to the complex and unforgivingly subtle novel presented in movie form.
I mentioned to Trish that the unitard during the Crimebuster meeting would have helped drive the idea and helped people grasp the pionancy of his nudity, but in a comic you can blatantly see his clothing transcition between panels. It is noticable. I'm not sure if movie audiences care what he was wearing in the past 3 scenes and how it related to what he's wearing now. It's a phenomenom that I read about that the mind does not conciously recognize major changes (such as the subtle withdrawl of Jon's wardrobe) if we do not percieve it changing.
In the comic it's all on one page. You see how different it is. A movie. Not so much.
So, yeah. Jon's penis is important. But a movie cannot really project how and THANKFULLY Solid Snake wasn't dumb enough to vocalize it.
Ahhhh...so I see. Ok...thank you for that clarification Craig. Makes perfect sense.
I am amused that people make such a big deal about it. The book just suddenly went to him being naked and I was surprised but then didn't care and certainly wouldn't list it in the top 10 most noticeable things about it. But put it in a movie and it's HOLY CRAP TEH BLUE PEN0R MOVIE.
*Laughs* I think the sheer blaise nature is why it's a big deal, but also because the general public doesn't quite understand the book right now and they see a super hero movie which is needlessly violent and has sex and nudity "for no reason".
Trish and I have been amusing ourself all weekend by reading reviews for it written by people not in the know, Yahoo! and AOL sites for instance.
An amusing comment I read was "They try so hard to be original and ground breaking. He has erectile dysfunction. How realistic. Oh wait. No he's having sex now. He doesn't guess the password on the computer! Oh. It just took a few tries"
I actually fault that person for not noticing Dan's dream began with a nude version of himself and Laurie and their dream romance only intiated in uniform. The movie was trying it's best to show how Dan's identity and self-confidence are both held in his Nite Owl persona, but the person did not make the distinction, which has me wondering why.
Now, I could just look at this as "some people just don't get it", but I really want to understand this to see the depths of symbolism a comic can offer and wether a movie can emulate them.
Also, I guarantee it wont be a big deal when we see Shia LeBeuf's junk in the Y: The Last Man movie.
I am amused that people make such a big deal about it. The book just suddenly went to him being naked and I was surprised but then didn't care and certainly wouldn't list it in the top 10 most noticeable things about it. But put it in a movie and it's HOLY CRAP TEH BLUE PEN0R MOVIE.
The penis in the book isn't anywhere near as real-looking as the penis in the movie. His junk in the book is two squiggles that barely looks like the male genitalia and is really only recognizable as such because of where it happens to be located on his body. It's definitely not the same thing.
As someone who hasn't yet read the GN (being remedied), I liked the movie. It has a lot of humanity (both good and bad) in a movie genre that at times seems more concerned with 'looking cool' than with providing interesting characters who you want to follow. And the actors more than did their part with that (despite Laurie's occasional blandness).
And I'm surprised Rorschach isn't the thing the mainstream's buzzing around rather than the Smurf. He was a constant source of crowd applause and his "I'm not in here with you; You're in here with me!" line got loud cheers.
Finally, Zac Snyder is 2 for 2 for awesome opening credits (Dawn Of The Dead and Watchmen. 300 didn't have a credits sequence at the beginning).
As someone who hasn't yet read the GN (being remedied), I liked the movie. It has a lot of humanity (both good and bad) in a movie genre that at times seems more concerned with 'looking cool' than with providing interesting characters who you want to follow. And the actors more than did their part with that (despite Laurie's occasional blandness).
And I'm surprised Rorschach isn't the thing the mainstream's buzzing around rather than the Smurf. He was a constant source of crowd applause and his "I'm not in here with you; You're in here with me!" line got loud cheers.
Finally, Zac Snyder is 2 for 2 for awesome opening credits (Dawn Of The Dead and Watchmen. 300 didn't have a credits sequence at the beginning).
Heck yea man! People cheered in your theater too.? That was like...epic.
I was the only one who reacted at that particular line when we saw it. And it was an unrestrained laugh of "I've been WAITING for that line and it was AWESOME".
Also, Craig mentioned we were looking over stupid reviews by stupid people? I chronicled some of the best ones.
~Shadowed Spirit Sage
Hahahah nice Sage. Thanks for those stupid people. I've got something to keep me occupied at work for the next 20 minutes. 😛
Watched the movie last night and can only really echo Castor's opinion as I too haven't read the graphic novel.
As a fan of comics though, this movie made me very happy, using capes and colourful costumes and other campy elements without shame, I want more comic movies to do that.
I went way WAY out of my way to not read the book until after I saw the movie, so I could appreciate the movie for what it is, not what it "should have been"
Because there's no such thing as a movie that's better than the book it's based on
Except maybe The Hunt for Red October
There are others that are better than the book, but they don't come to mind at the moment.
Hrnnnn, just come back from it and boy is my ass numb.
I love the graphic novel, and have to say, yeah, this is a faithful adaptation, full of intruige, interesting and complex characters and whatnot.
Problem is it makes for a tedious, bipolar movie, with yet another case of "I don't know when to end syndrome."
The switch of blame for Ozy's plan was good though, that's better than before. And Rorshac was unadulterated awesome at all times.
The rest?
Kinda bland. It just... could either do with being hours longer or hours shorter and I don't know which.
Either way, I don't think it's a cinema movie. Definatly something that would work better in a small room with likeminded friends to discuss and talk about.
In all honesty I was bitterly dissapointed with the movie. I didn't like the changed ending especially because it made little sense- if Dr.Manhattan was the cause of the nuclear assaults around the world why would it neccessarily cause peace for all the nations? Surely they would have rallied together against the USA for the simple fact that Dr.Manhattan was supposed to be an American weapon. Even if Jon did leave them and attack New York, I would have still expected retaliation against the country who couldn't control their own weapon.
Personally I preferred the comic book ending not so much that it was the world uniting against an alien threat, but rather an unknown one. Nothing is more scary than the unknown. Perhaps if the movie didn't even have the public know about what specified the attack, I would have liked it more.
Overall, I just don't think a Watchmen film was possible. What I would have liked to have seen is a 12 episode half hour series with each episode being based around each chapter, since it took me on average 30 minutes to read one chapter. That way no content is missed and the characters get better development then they otherwise did in the movie. Also, it would help to retain some of the individual chapter cliffhangers the comic had but otherwise lost impact in the movie (such as Nite Owl's suggestion to bust Rorsach out, Ozymandias reveal that his plan already occured 37 minutes ago etc).
Ok, I r serious. Warning-Vulgarities ensue in this post -.-....
After watching Watchmen, I read the novel. I didn't have any qualms with the change in the plot focus, or how the ending was executed. Whenever adapted for big screen, any text loses volumes of character development, but needs to make up for it somehow. I don't know about you Pach, but you say the impact of the realization that Ozy set his plan into motion 37 minutes ago was lost? Not in my theater. That line came out of his mouth, and everyone was all "NO ..HE DIDN'T! OOOH SNAP!!"
I'm pretty sure though, that a good chunk of the folks that saw it had not read the book either, and wasn't going in with the expectation or understanding of having nuanced the book. Which prolly makes the film that much better, honestly.
As for filming a statement Craig..naa. It was hard enough to understand that he wanted to save humanity even though his detachment was obviously evident. Having him act as if he would "destroy the world" would have thrown the movie into average comic book twist realm.-and they did a damned fine job of not doing that. So i'm kinda happy that was left "open."
Rorshack was fantastic, easily tied with Comedian as best character in that movie. Yes, the jail line was fantastic, but I loved the way he finished off the midget, lol.
However, Comedian had the best role ever. Jumping off of Archy and punching that women the the face was hands down the funniest moment in the movie. I'm still cracking up about it. But his view-his demonizing view of the world as a joke was more than perfect- it was truly a visionist way of seeing just how horrible mankind had become. I appreciated that adaption more than anything else - to tell you the truth. In some parts, I felt Rorshack was going down that path of realization as well.
Then they Killed him. yeah I threw a empty apple juice bottle then and I'm sure it hit someone, but I didn't care, I was cursing mad then.
Oh Soundtrack. WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING.
First off, I don't like it when ugly actresses have sex scenes-and the cameramen have this awesome notion of filming the guys butt while its going on. I dunno who started that *!!%, but it needs to stop. Plus the music during that scene was beyond awkward. Not to mention her outfit-once I really got to see what it was, was hideous -.-....I thought it was a full spandex suit. No! Its some Cameltoe suit-which becomes evident more than enough times-(Ozy superkick anyone?)
Yeah the soundtrack was everywhere but where it needed to be, and that's what lost me partway through the first hour. but they got me back.
Lastly, I'll end with Mr. Smurf. His character was amazing, I loved the backstory most of all. It had a weird chime of nostalgia, only because I'm a Heroes fanboy and the main villain on that show was also a watchmaker, which made for a hilarious connection. As for him being naked, it was fine. I had no problem with it. But I did get tired of seeing blue penis all around. Specially when there were like, 4 of him. I'm like "Ugh combo Blue Penis! Let us gingerly touch our tips together." just to make myself laugh-because the Night Owl guy looked like Paul Rudd a lil.
Then again, they did show the Tijuana comic, and that was beyond ridiculous.
Ok I'm done. I loved the movie, hate the soundtrack and I will now coin my new catchphase as "Srop being a Blue Penis."
From what I gathered, I must be one of the few who read the book first, then watched the movie and thoroughly enjoyed it. Oh, the book edges out the film in every aspect, but the film did a marginally good job keeping intact with the book. While some of the little things were taken out, from a movie's point of view, it makes sense and I like they didn't bother to add in anything that might not have worked overall.
Yes, the ending changed, too, but they generally kept the same results, even if it was altered. I don't know, I thought it was good. I can't wait for extended stuff for the DVD release, but I liked it.
