Mga Taong Relo

Way too late a review. I already have the graphic novel by the time I watched this film several weeks ago, but I refused to read it first before viewing it. This is just so I know I may be able to comment about it from a perspective of someone who is not comparing from the adapted manuscript.


Watchmen
Spoiler Alert! Spoiler Alert! Spoiler Alert!

It's the 80's and conflicts between America and the Soviet Union ups the possibility of a nuclear warfare. In the US, a retired costumed crimefighter is murdered. It sets off his friend and ex-teammate Rorschach to hunt the killer. In a tangled web of deceit, the remaining Watchmen are forced to reunite and follow the trails of the culprit as it led them deeper and deeper into its schemes.

The rest of the story has a brilliantly complex plot that giving it away on a summary won't give justice to its essence. So just to have an idea, in the latter part of the story, they discovered that the murderer is one of their own and that a necessary evil is done in order to justify a greater good.

The verdict...
I haven't read the graphic novel yet but I feel bad that Alan Moore disowns the film possibly without even going through watching it. Without knowing how good or bad the adaptation goes, the brilliance of the storyline alone and how it is depicted in the film is a visual treat. The 80's settings is captured alive and each scenes seem to be taken right out of comic book panels. Yes, they are darkly set typical of movies such as "300" (same director with the film) and "V for Vendetta", but vivid colors all around which is characteristic of the 80's is well represented throughout the movie. The Ozymandias & Silk Spectre costumes for example are reminiscent of the old colorful superhero japorms ala the "KABLAM! KAPOW!" era of Batman and Robin.

Since I belong to that part of the patrons who haven't read the comicbook, I can confidently say that reading it is not really a prerequisite in order to enjoy the film. Yes, viewers might be able to miss some nitty gritties that will only be apparent if one read the original storyline but the entertainment value coming from "freshly" viewing the movie and following its story is a totally different experience compared to those who read it and expecting a LOT from the adaptation.

The film can easily be discounted as just another "supergroup" story at first glance and I've heard a couple of unintelligent remarks about it by people who obviously just based their judgment from how crappy the heroes look like on the preview. Well for the benefit of those who don't know crap about the graphic novel, the storyline is brilliantly weaved with a plot well above to a hell lot of modern comicbook to film adaptations.

If there will be a downside to the flow of the screenplay is that I find the "character-driving" a bit extended to a point that the difference between what scenes are for character development and what scenes are for plot development is already confusing. So at some point, the movie will feel somewhat being dragged by unnecessary scenes when you will realize later on that they are relevant to the story.

I also hated the cut scene. Not because it bereft the male viewers a longer glance-time at Malin Akerman's (Silk Spectre II) naked glory but because it's an obvious and tasteless cut. I rather preferred the whole fiasco removed if it will mean that they can take it out of the film creatively, that is the cut being not too noticeable.

Now for the casts. Some of the praiseworthy performances to take note is by Walter Kovacs for taking the role of the hooded sociopath, Rorschach. His voice and mannerism made a life out of the character. Billy Crudup, the CG-based Dr. Manhattan, just needs to act blankly and detached and he'll do fine. I also liked the portrayal of the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan). Morgan's acting did justice to the storyline developed for his character... rugged and maniacal. I find Malin Akerman's acting dull. She's just a token eye-candy on the movie. As for Ozymandias (Matthew Goode), if the character's meant to be vain, laid-back, and haughty (and gay!) in the graphic novel then I guess he did his part well. Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson) just acted averagely for me. He performed well as a typical nerdy do-good guy.

In all, it's a well mix of a great screenplay, a good cinematography (if you're the one for dark themes), and an awesome plot to back it all up. Kudos to the director for brilliantly putting up what is long deemed to be an unfilmable material.

9 out of 10!

Mga Taong Relo

Way too late a review. I already have the graphic novel by the time I watched this film several weeks ago, but I refused to read it first before viewing it. This is just so I know I may be able to comment about it from a perspective of someone who is not comparing from the adapted manuscript.


Watchmen
Spoiler Alert! Spoiler Alert! Spoiler Alert!

It's the 80's and conflicts between America and the Soviet Union ups the possibility of a nuclear warfare. In the US, a retired costumed crimefighter is murdered. It sets off his friend and ex-teammate Rorschach to hunt the killer. In a tangled web of deceit, the remaining Watchmen are forced to reunite and follow the trails of the culprit as it led them deeper and deeper into its schemes.

The rest of the story has a brilliantly complex plot that giving it away on a summary won't give justice to its essence. So just to have an idea, in the latter part of the story, they discovered that the murderer is one of their own and that a necessary evil is done in order to justify a greater good.

The verdict...
I haven't read the graphic novel yet but I feel bad that Alan Moore disowns the film possibly without even going through watching it. Without knowing how good or bad the adaptation goes, the brilliance of the storyline alone and how it is depicted in the film is a visual treat. The 80's settings is captured alive and each scenes seem to be taken right out of comic book panels. Yes, they are darkly set typical of movies such as "300" (same director with the film) and "V for Vendetta", but vivid colors all around which is characteristic of the 80's is well represented throughout the movie. The Ozymandias & Silk Spectre costumes for example are reminiscent of the old colorful superhero japorms ala the "KABLAM! KAPOW!" era of Batman and Robin.

Since I belong to that part of the patrons who haven't read the comicbook, I can confidently say that reading it is not really a prerequisite in order to enjoy the film. Yes, viewers might be able to miss some nitty gritties that will only be apparent if one read the original storyline but the entertainment value coming from "freshly" viewing the movie and following its story is a totally different experience compared to those who read it and expecting a LOT from the adaptation.

The film can easily be discounted as just another "supergroup" story at first glance and I've heard a couple of unintelligent remarks about it by people who obviously just based their judgment from how crappy the heroes look like on the preview. Well for the benefit of those who don't know crap about the graphic novel, the storyline is brilliantly weaved with a plot well above to a hell lot of modern comicbook to film adaptations.

If there will be a downside to the flow of the screenplay is that I find the "character-driving" a bit extended to a point that the difference between what scenes are for character development and what scenes are for plot development is already confusing. So at some point, the movie will feel somewhat being dragged by unnecessary scenes when you will realize later on that they are relevant to the story.

I also hated the cut scene. Not because it bereft the male viewers a longer glance-time at Malin Akerman's (Silk Spectre II) naked glory but because it's an obvious and tasteless cut. I rather preferred the whole fiasco removed if it will mean that they can take it out of the film creatively, that is the cut being not too noticeable.

Now for the casts. Some of the praiseworthy performances to take note is by Walter Kovacs for taking the role of the hooded sociopath, Rorschach. His voice and mannerism made a life out of the character. Billy Crudup, the CG-based Dr. Manhattan, just needs to act blankly and detached and he'll do fine. I also liked the portrayal of the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan). Morgan's acting did justice to the storyline developed for his character... rugged and maniacal. I find Malin Akerman's acting dull. She's just a token eye-candy on the movie. As for Ozymandias (Matthew Goode), if the character's meant to be vain, laid-back, and haughty (and gay!) in the graphic novel then I guess he did his part well. Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson) just acted averagely for me. He performed well as a typical nerdy do-good guy.

In all, it's a well mix of a great screenplay, a good cinematography (if you're the one for dark themes), and an awesome plot to back it all up. Kudos to the director for brilliantly putting up what is long deemed to be an unfilmable material.

9 out of 10!