LoginA la hora de adaptar una obra se pueden seguir dos caminos:
1. Cambiar bastante del material original para ajustarlo a la visión de los involucrados.
2. Intentar seguirlo lo más fielmente posible para así acercarse más a lo que quiso el creador.
Con la primera se corre el riesgo de crear un monstruo de Frankenstein en el que partes muy distintas no terminan por generar una sinergia y en la segunda una obra que se sienta totalmente reemplazable al ya existir el material original.
Watchmen sufre de ambas cosas.
Es innegable que hay cosas buenas e incluso retazos de genialidad, pero también hay un talón de Aquiles y son sus intentos de ser otra de las secuelas no-oficiales de Matrix que tan de moda estaban en los 2000s, una cinta de superhéroes que sea "molona" para los adolescentes que vayan a verla al cine, Dr. Strangelove pero sin el sentido del humor tan acido de Kubrick y al final la adaptación más fiel posible de la obra maestra de Alan Moore. Como es de esperar, acaba por quedarse a medio camino en todo lo "nuevo" que intenta proponer y por su ambición de aun así apegarse bastante al comic terminas sintiendo que igual podrías estar experimentando una versión de la historia mucho más completa y mejor presentada.
Watchmen Reviews
Watchmen review
Posted : 7 months, 2 weeks ago on 24 September 2023 05:52
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Watchmen review
Posted : 2 years, 3 months ago on 30 January 2022 11:31
Aunque suene cutre pues sí, la mejor película de super héroes que he visto. Tema y personajes interesantes, aunque aun carga con la dirección Snyder...
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Watchmen, but unironically
Posted : 4 years, 4 months ago on 30 December 2019 09:45
Watchmen es un muy interesante caso de adaptación.
Primero un commie/anarquista esoterista revoluciona los cómics con una obra maestra en medio de la guerra fría, y tras años de producción en los que se barajaron una gran variedad de ideas, la adaptación cinematográfica quedó en manos de un admirador de Ayn Rand con muy limitada habilidad, poco antes de que inicie la era de oro del cine de superhéroes. No es de extrañar un resultado tan controversial.
Para empezar, la película se mantiene fiel a la historia original: Un acercamiento serio y realista a los superhéroes, en el que su la violencia genera daño real, la naturaleza animalística del humano forma parte de los superhéroes, y su presencia cambia los eventos históricos y la vida diaria de las personas. Con ello se establecen las bases para un drama sociopolítico como el que Christopher Nolan sólo pudo soñar, donde los vigilantes que operan sin supervisión no imponen límites a sus crímenes, hasta convertirse en armas del gobierno; los superhéroes cumplen un rol fundamental en la muerte del sueño americano, excelentemente representada en la secuencia de créditos que transita de los coloridos encapuchados de la Golden Age a los héroes más oscuros y humanos de la era moderna.
En tal contexto la historia desarrolla un enrevesado misterio de la mano de un paranoico enmascarado portador del más profundo absolutismo moral. En el proceso vamos conociendo a personajes variados, cada uno con un trasfondo que revelar y una personalidad muy humana, además de una perspectiva ideológica particular. Un ex-soldado que se ríe del espectáculo que es el mundo moderno, un dios que ya no valora la vida humana porque sólo puede ver la imagen mayor mientras percibe el tiempo como una dimensión más, un exitoso empresario maquiavélico que busca establecer una utopía a toda costa, un judío al que le excita vestirse de búho para salir a impartir justicia, y una mujer que desde siempre dejó que otros definieran su identidad y ahora es incapaz de tomar las riendas de su vida, junto a Rorschach, todos pasan por momentos catárticos de sus vidas a lo largo del filme, que impulsan su desarrollo (John, Laurie y Dan) o ponen a prueba sus ideales estáticos (Rorschach, Blake y Veidt). Ozymandias es quien más sufre en comparación al cómic, al mantenerse su objetivo como un misterio durante la mayoría de la película y eliminarse gran parte del capítulo sobre su trasfondo (además de que ni la actuación ni el vestuario son tan expresivos como podrían serlo), y en el proceso se elimina la crisis por la que pasa Blake al descubrir su plan.
Pero aún con todas las omisiones, Watchmen presenta la mayoría de los conflictos de la obra original y sus correspondientes temas: Individualidad e identidad, perspectiva, fatalismo, nihilismo, elitismo, maquiavelismo, egoísmo, sacrificio, valor de la vida, sexualidad, herencia, nostalgia, vigilantismo.
No es tanto la historia como las drásticas decisiones de dirección las que hacen tan controversial al filme.
La novela gráfica posee una narración cruda y muy imparcial, representa una sociedad decadente de la que los personajes forman parte, permite entender cada perspectiva sin romantizar ninguna.
La película, por su parte, pasa la historia por un filtro ideológico que enaltece a los vigilantes; lo que Alan Moore quisiera que veamos como "unos tipos enfermos que piensan que pueden cambiar las cosas saliendo a golpear gente", Zack Snyder lo presenta como la única esperanza de cambio en un mundo podrido, hombres que rechazan las normativas sociales y se elevan por sobre los demás.
En el funeral del Comedian, la letra de The Sound of Silence (Antes de volverse un meme) describe acertadamente esta perspectiva: "Hear my words that I might teach you. Take my arms that I might reach you. But my words like silence raindrops fell, and echoed in the wells of silence."
Su fuerza es exagerada, su entrenamiento es reforzado, su vestuario los hace ver cool, y con el slow-motion llegan a lo sublime. Cada movimiento se vuelve un espectáculo dedicado a extasiar al ojo, se trate de un arma siendo disparada, soldados doblando una bandera o una mujer desvistiéndose. Aún si la historia está intacta, Snyder nos quiere vender la perspectiva del poderoso, la perspectiva del vigilante, la perspectiva del violador y hasta la del genocida. El Comedian y Rorschach ya no son enfermos e inadaptados que mueren como tristes fracasados, sino que son gente "basada y redpilleada" cuya muerte representa una tragedia mayor. Y la Nostalgia ya no es un símbolo del pasado que debe ser destruido para romper las ilusiones de las que somos presos, sino una fuerza que nos permite luchar hasta el final, fieles a nuestros ideales, para morir como héroes.
Esa es una de las razones por las que muchos fans del cómic no pueden gustar de una película que enaltece el poder individual y la meritocracia hasta tal nivel.
También es cierto que los débiles, las víctimas del genocidio, se ven deshumanizadas, quitándole impacto al final. Mientras el cómic se toma su tiempo para presentar a muchos personajes para asesinarlos en un clímax inesperadamente grotesco que destruye toda la estructura del cómic con un calamar que satiriza las fantásticas historietas de superhéroes; la versión de Snyder concluye con una genérica luz que destruye los cadáveres y reduce las millones de muertes a un simple número, tal como lo ve el genio utopista.
Y si la edición genética no iba a formar parte de la trama al final, no hay punto en introducir algo tan distrayente como un gato azul mutante en el último acto de la película.
A forma de conclusión: No culpo a Snyder por apropiarse de Watchmen y hacerlo su propia obra de arte, y con certeza prefiero esto a que quede en manos de progresistas actuales. Pero también debo reconocer que su Watchmen resulta más simplista y menos madura que la original, al no comprometerse hasta el final con la crítica al género y restringir la variedad de lecturas que permite el cómic, a la vez que desperdicia la oportunidad de adaptar cinematográficamente múltiples detalles únicos de su medio como podría haber hecho un autor más competente. Si bien es una muy buena deconstrucción del género que hace funcionar en armonía personajes muy interesantes y un mundo orgánico con una gran profundidad temática, no está al nivel de la obra maestra calculada milimétricamente llena de simbolismos y con un profundo meta-comentario que es el cómic.
Primero un commie/anarquista esoterista revoluciona los cómics con una obra maestra en medio de la guerra fría, y tras años de producción en los que se barajaron una gran variedad de ideas, la adaptación cinematográfica quedó en manos de un admirador de Ayn Rand con muy limitada habilidad, poco antes de que inicie la era de oro del cine de superhéroes. No es de extrañar un resultado tan controversial.
Para empezar, la película se mantiene fiel a la historia original: Un acercamiento serio y realista a los superhéroes, en el que su la violencia genera daño real, la naturaleza animalística del humano forma parte de los superhéroes, y su presencia cambia los eventos históricos y la vida diaria de las personas. Con ello se establecen las bases para un drama sociopolítico como el que Christopher Nolan sólo pudo soñar, donde los vigilantes que operan sin supervisión no imponen límites a sus crímenes, hasta convertirse en armas del gobierno; los superhéroes cumplen un rol fundamental en la muerte del sueño americano, excelentemente representada en la secuencia de créditos que transita de los coloridos encapuchados de la Golden Age a los héroes más oscuros y humanos de la era moderna.
En tal contexto la historia desarrolla un enrevesado misterio de la mano de un paranoico enmascarado portador del más profundo absolutismo moral. En el proceso vamos conociendo a personajes variados, cada uno con un trasfondo que revelar y una personalidad muy humana, además de una perspectiva ideológica particular. Un ex-soldado que se ríe del espectáculo que es el mundo moderno, un dios que ya no valora la vida humana porque sólo puede ver la imagen mayor mientras percibe el tiempo como una dimensión más, un exitoso empresario maquiavélico que busca establecer una utopía a toda costa, un judío al que le excita vestirse de búho para salir a impartir justicia, y una mujer que desde siempre dejó que otros definieran su identidad y ahora es incapaz de tomar las riendas de su vida, junto a Rorschach, todos pasan por momentos catárticos de sus vidas a lo largo del filme, que impulsan su desarrollo (John, Laurie y Dan) o ponen a prueba sus ideales estáticos (Rorschach, Blake y Veidt). Ozymandias es quien más sufre en comparación al cómic, al mantenerse su objetivo como un misterio durante la mayoría de la película y eliminarse gran parte del capítulo sobre su trasfondo (además de que ni la actuación ni el vestuario son tan expresivos como podrían serlo), y en el proceso se elimina la crisis por la que pasa Blake al descubrir su plan.
Pero aún con todas las omisiones, Watchmen presenta la mayoría de los conflictos de la obra original y sus correspondientes temas: Individualidad e identidad, perspectiva, fatalismo, nihilismo, elitismo, maquiavelismo, egoísmo, sacrificio, valor de la vida, sexualidad, herencia, nostalgia, vigilantismo.
No es tanto la historia como las drásticas decisiones de dirección las que hacen tan controversial al filme.
La novela gráfica posee una narración cruda y muy imparcial, representa una sociedad decadente de la que los personajes forman parte, permite entender cada perspectiva sin romantizar ninguna.
La película, por su parte, pasa la historia por un filtro ideológico que enaltece a los vigilantes; lo que Alan Moore quisiera que veamos como "unos tipos enfermos que piensan que pueden cambiar las cosas saliendo a golpear gente", Zack Snyder lo presenta como la única esperanza de cambio en un mundo podrido, hombres que rechazan las normativas sociales y se elevan por sobre los demás.
En el funeral del Comedian, la letra de The Sound of Silence (Antes de volverse un meme) describe acertadamente esta perspectiva: "Hear my words that I might teach you. Take my arms that I might reach you. But my words like silence raindrops fell, and echoed in the wells of silence."
Su fuerza es exagerada, su entrenamiento es reforzado, su vestuario los hace ver cool, y con el slow-motion llegan a lo sublime. Cada movimiento se vuelve un espectáculo dedicado a extasiar al ojo, se trate de un arma siendo disparada, soldados doblando una bandera o una mujer desvistiéndose. Aún si la historia está intacta, Snyder nos quiere vender la perspectiva del poderoso, la perspectiva del vigilante, la perspectiva del violador y hasta la del genocida. El Comedian y Rorschach ya no son enfermos e inadaptados que mueren como tristes fracasados, sino que son gente "basada y redpilleada" cuya muerte representa una tragedia mayor. Y la Nostalgia ya no es un símbolo del pasado que debe ser destruido para romper las ilusiones de las que somos presos, sino una fuerza que nos permite luchar hasta el final, fieles a nuestros ideales, para morir como héroes.
Esa es una de las razones por las que muchos fans del cómic no pueden gustar de una película que enaltece el poder individual y la meritocracia hasta tal nivel.
También es cierto que los débiles, las víctimas del genocidio, se ven deshumanizadas, quitándole impacto al final. Mientras el cómic se toma su tiempo para presentar a muchos personajes para asesinarlos en un clímax inesperadamente grotesco que destruye toda la estructura del cómic con un calamar que satiriza las fantásticas historietas de superhéroes; la versión de Snyder concluye con una genérica luz que destruye los cadáveres y reduce las millones de muertes a un simple número, tal como lo ve el genio utopista.
Y si la edición genética no iba a formar parte de la trama al final, no hay punto en introducir algo tan distrayente como un gato azul mutante en el último acto de la película.
A forma de conclusión: No culpo a Snyder por apropiarse de Watchmen y hacerlo su propia obra de arte, y con certeza prefiero esto a que quede en manos de progresistas actuales. Pero también debo reconocer que su Watchmen resulta más simplista y menos madura que la original, al no comprometerse hasta el final con la crítica al género y restringir la variedad de lecturas que permite el cómic, a la vez que desperdicia la oportunidad de adaptar cinematográficamente múltiples detalles únicos de su medio como podría haber hecho un autor más competente. Si bien es una muy buena deconstrucción del género que hace funcionar en armonía personajes muy interesantes y un mundo orgánico con una gran profundidad temática, no está al nivel de la obra maestra calculada milimétricamente llena de simbolismos y con un profundo meta-comentario que es el cómic.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Watchmen review
Posted : 4 years, 5 months ago on 18 November 2019 12:32
A la hora de hablar de Watchmen es inevitable compararla con su material de origen, siendo una de las principales críticas que se suelen usar para hablar de la misma. Sin embargo, me es más agradable empezar por las características de la película sin recurrir al contraste frente al comic.
Watchmen es una deconstrucción de las historias de superheroes idealizadas a lo Superman en sus primeros años de lanzamientos. No diría que sea la única en su clase. Kick-Ass o The Dark Knight Returns atentaban ser más verosímiles. Lo que vuelve tan especial a Watchmen es como no sólo es más realista que las anteriores nombradas, también fue el primer y único trabajo en su estilo con ansias de dar una perspectiva humana de lo que los superheroes serían, no sólo una cruda sátira como Kick-Ass.
La obra explora varias implicaciones que un grupo selecto de humanos con capacidades especiales y superiores al promedio causarían en el mundo. Pese a que los superheroes son apenas mejores en cuestiones físicas e intelectuales, es suficiente como para cambiar el rumbo que la civilización estaba teniendo en plena guerra fría. Una realidad donde los super humanos se vuelven armas para los gobiernos que juran lealtad sirviendo como figuras públicas para asombrar a la población con símbolos patrióticos, espías que cometen todo tipo de actos cuestionables para mantener en pie la seguridad de Estados Unidos o como armas contra los enemigos de este país. A fin de cuentas, estas maneras de utilizar a estos individuos son más creíbles viendo el panorama político de la época, algo que cagadas como Boku no Hero Academia jamás podrán emular ni en el más ambicioso de sus sueños. Es de notar el grado de detalle que Moore había puesto en crear su distopica ucronía al punto en que incluso los superheroes influyen en la economía y el mercado, hay ex-miembros de estos grupos que se vuelven empresarios y aprovechan su status para sacar provecho y volverse ricos.
Es tanta la influencia que estos seres han tenido en el mundo que incluso su ausencia causaría un apocalipsis nuclear, siendo que el ya mencionado Estados Unidos se vuelve dependiente de su existencia para defenderse del ataques soviéticos gracias a los poderes del Dr Manhattan, el único que posee superpoderes de verdad, los cuales son tan poderosos que naciones enteras le tienen pavor de cualquier paso o declaración que haga. Si con simples humanos dueños de una mayor fuerza, agilidad e inteligencia que el promedio pueden alterar nuestra línea de tiempo, el cambio que una entidad con potencial divino es capaz de realizar no se debe subestimar.
Estas interrogantes apenas forman una parte del universo de Watchmen. Siendo que sus intenciones son satíricas, la forma en la que se representa a la sociedad de los años sententas y ochentas es muy acertada. Todo está en decadencia, la corrupción empresarial y gubernamental, los delincuentes, drogadictos y prostitutas abundan en las calles, todo el mundo protesta por el uso que el gobierno le da a los superheroes de la misma forma en la que los ciudadanos estadounidenses protestaban en aquellas épocas para quejarse y desaprobar las acciones del gobierno de su país. Logra transmitir esa visión pesimista del horror de una hipotética Tercera Guerra Mundial que todos los que vivían en aquellos años sintieron.
Ademas del mundo y su extensión creíble, lo que de verdad llama la atención es como la mayoría de los personajes contrastan al estereotipo del patriota que defiende a su nación por altruismo y un deseo desinteresado de realizar el bien. Estos se basan en personajes de superheroes ya existentes (con obvias variaciones para evitar el copyright) al tener los mismos cimientos pero con resultados muy opuesto. Los personajes no trabajan para el gobierno por idealismos, lo hacen por motivos basados en caprichos, beneficios económicos o filosofías propias. El personaje principal, Rorschach, es descrito como un sociopata violento y peligroso, pero lo interesante es lo fácil que puedes empatizar con él, ya que más que un loco es una suerte de detective sin escrúpulos con los criminales guiado por su ideología altamente conservadora, radical y critica a los tiempos en los que habita, alguien del que nos es mostrado su pasado y los augurios que ha vivido, justificando este comportamiento y, con todo lo dicho, manteniendo un código moral muy estricto y admirable.
Su mejor amigo, Nite Owl, mejor conocido como Daniel Dreiberg, es sucesor del original Nite Owl, un hombre frustrado con su vida aburrida que se sumó al trabajo de superheroes al no saber que quería hacer con su vida y la riqueza que poseía. Alguien que basa sus ganas de tener este trabajo por la adrenalina que le genera y por la ideología que estos supuestos heroes tienen, lo que lo hacen idealizarles hasta que ve la amarga realidad que ellos representan.
Dr. Manhattan, un ser que vendría a ser la versión realista de Superman, que al igual que este, se distancie de los humanos porque no pueden igualarsele de alguna forma y que a diferencia de Superman, su superioridad no lo convierta en un Gary Stu, sino en una persona apática con los demás, que no les encuentra valor y por ende, va perdiendo las características que lo volvían humano, cayendo en la decepción hacia la humanidad y sumergiéndose en su psicopatía.
Adrian, conocido popularmente como Ozysmandias, el más idealista del grupo y principal antagonista. Un soñador que desea desesperadamente lograr la paz mundial y dominar el mundo por medio de sus planes. Alguien con una inteligencia y astucia que le permiten elaborar planes y conspiraciones muy bien hilados, los cuales son revelados a lo largo del metraje y poseen completo sentido, lo que nos muestra en primera el buen manejo del misterio en la historia y en segunda, lo bien construido que es el personaje por su representación de la inteligencia.
Puedo incluso destacar a secundarios como El Comediante, quien es un patético criminal de guerra con una vida nihilista basada en ser un chiste viviente que no se toma en serio la existencia, considerándola absurda, razón por la que comete cientos de crímenes políticos en diversas guerras alrededor del globo. Es por ende el meme del Honk Honk y el Vivimos en Sociedad antes del Honk Honk y el Vivimos en Sociedad.
Con personajes tan bien armados la obra confronta las visiones que poseen. Rorschach con su idea de realizar el bien bajo un puño de hierro autoritario y de absoluta búsqueda de la verdad frente a Ozymandias donde la búsqueda de una paz mundial valdría lo que sea, incluso la muerte de millones de inocentes junto a una mentira, o que hay de este con la despreocupada actitud de El Comediante y respectivamente con la de Manhattan. Varias de estas ideologías tienen paralelismos con obvios movimientos políticos de la vida real, Rorschach con el nacionalismo, Ozysmandias con el universalismo y un largo etcétera pero es muy madura la forma en la que se presentan dichos temas, mostrando el porqué piensan así.
Del mismo modo, me gusta como la narrativa se las apaña para contar tantas subtramas y que no se sientan fuera de lugar. El seguimiento de eventos es natural con multiples eventos ocurriendo en todas partes y con un cierre que concluye a cada personaje satisfactoriamente.
Siendo justos, Watchmen destaca por sobre cualquier otra película de superheroes. Unos años atrás, títulos como Spider-man habían explorado bien la psicología de sus personajes, Los Increíbles habían mostrado las repercusiones e implicaciones que un superheroe genera y V for Vendetta elevó la apuesta al llevar dichas repercusiones al terreno político y social, pero ninguna de las que he nombrado logró con creces llegar al nivel de Watchmen con su uso del escenario, exploración psicológica, temática y desarrollo. Ahora, tú, el que está leyendo esto, explícame ¿Cómo carajos un film como este puede ser tan despreciado al punto que se volvió una burla y que todos la usen como material de referencia de memes de estar cansados y penes azules? (revelando la madurez del público).
Mientras que todo el mundo alabó a The Dark Knight con apenas un diez por ciento del contenido que presenta esta película, la gente se burla por acusaciones burdas y dignas de una palmada la cara por el nivel de cringe y falta de sentido común que poseen.
Ataquemos la que más sentido tiene, quitar parte de las escenas del material original y modificar el tono. Es verdad que el comic poseía más contenido que da más pie a la reflexión, por ejemplo, la escena en la que a Manhattan se le aconseja crearse un logo como una estrategia de Marketing es removida, algo que suma a esta crítica a la comercialización y explotación de su poder en el público. Sin embargo, no es como que meter o quitar escenas vaya a arruinar por completo una adaptación que refleja los mismos valores y mensajes, ademas que varias de las escenas son incorporadas en la versión de tres horas. Lo mismo con el tono, siendo menos patético, pero con la misma forma de presentar a la sociedad como desagradable e indeseable. Es una adaptación, su intención no es copiar al pie de la letra comic, y si no me creen, tan sólo miren a ese cashgrab animado hecho con flash por el cuál nadie da un carajo. ¿Sigue siendo inferior? Claro, pero no carente de un gran merito. Puedo hasta afirmar que prefiero ciertos cambios en la adaptación. Ignoro lo que los demás digan, pero que el plan de Ozymandias termine con una explosión nuclear es preferible a que un calamar extraterrestre destruya Nueva York. Ese criticismo me recuerda a cierto anime que todo el mundo adora pero que les disgusta su acelerado inicio (FMAB).
Y yendo a las más pendejas críticas. Tenemos la que es una película edgy llena de violencia. Claro, como si no olvidásemos que gran parte de la violencia estaba ya en el comic, y que usando ese argumento de fanboy puedo decir que el material original es edgy o incluso peor, porque de hecho, el puto comic es más sangriento que la misma película. Y decir que es edgy tomando en cuenta lo jodido que está el mundo donde la población está cagada de miedo, hay eminente guerra nuclear mientras al mismo tiempo todo está rodeado de decadencia y delincuencia, entonces otros títulos como Taxi Driver son más edgys que Elfen Lied.
Otros la etiquetan de mal dirigida. Es verdad que hay ciertas escenas en donde el CGI era cutre y que el estilo que maneja da un aire medio exagerado y caricaturesco. Ahora ¿se les olvida que es una sátira? Las peleas están diseñadas así adrede para dar ese estilo medio sacado de Batman de Tim Burton con el obvio objetivo de mostrar que sí, es en parte una pendejada. No falta de paso el mequetrefe que apunte a la iluminación baja y uso de colores opacos como un error, no olvidemos que la idea es verse sombrío, cosa que logra. No es Man of Steel, ahí es entendible la crítica.
Ahora vayamos por los que dicen que es pura acción, sexo, sensacionalismo y fanservice, ignorando todo lo que he dicho con anterioridad por una que otra escena de acción aquí y allá o porque ven los genitales de Manhattan (como si eso fuese a lo que le dieran atención, bola de degenerado) y que Spectre y Nite Owl tuviesen un acto sexual. Bueno, como que al público se olvidó de por que está ese acto sexual ahí.
De hecho, los auténticos problemas de Watchmen vienen ya del comic. El personaje de Silk Spectre es un mal personaje. Pese a su rol proactivo en la historia, sus motivaciones y exploración son burdas. No sólo es superheroe por capricho al igual que Nite Owl, pero este último contrastaba su parte egoísta con su moral y ganas de ayudar a los demás, Spectre es sólo caprichosa. El único momento donde el personaje se vuelve más humano es cuando revelan que es hija de El Comediante e incluso en esas tampoco es agradable porque cae en llanto por un momento, ademas que para ese punto de la historia con todo lo que ocurría alrededor vuelve insustancial la revelación por muy bien anticipado que sea. Su relación con Manhattan tampoco tiene mucho sentido siendo que ella no tiene autenticas razones para quererlo y el romance literalmente se cimienta en nada. Aparte que sus reacciones ante muchos hechos parecen alienigenos con el impacto que deberían tener, cuando Manhattan aniquila a Rorschach, es risible como jamás cuestiona lo sucedido con Ozymandias destruyendo varias ciudades cuando Nite Owl no sabía como reaccionar ante semejante situación por las dudas y la ansiedad que le produce, o que le valiera verga que Manhattan matase a uno de sus compañeros y se despidiese como si nada. En definitiva, el personaje tiene ciertas cosas interesantes, pero en general es muy despreciable por su forma de ser, carencia de profundidad y lo incoherente que resulta en ocasiones.
Watchmen es por lejos una de las películas con peor suerte posible. Todo un caso de cómo hacer una maravilla para no sea apreciada culpa de la ignorancia y fanatismo estúpido de la gente e incluso del mismo autor. Una de esas anécdotas tristes que me tocan ver de títulos interesantes subestimados y los cuales recomiendo. Una de las mejores películas de la década pasada, de las mejores que haya tenido el agrado de ver y la mejor película de superheroes que te podrás encontrar.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Watchmen review
Posted : 11 years, 4 months ago on 15 December 2012 11:13
Not impressed. AT ALL. The cartoon movie version is 100x better. But on the side I was quite enjoying this but the ending sucked, I mean really really sucked. And there was a few bits in this movie that were fiddled about with, which led to it being spoilt. Please please take my advice and watch the cartoon movie. It's better than this average movie that you choose to watch instead/first.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Watchmen review
Posted : 11 years, 11 months ago on 11 June 2012 11:04
Watchmen presents itself like a golden sword half stuck in sand. It attracts people. But what it doesn't show is that it's actually blunt and not much. That repelled most viewers, me included!
Zack Snyder is a pretty great director and two of his films are some of my favourites (300 & Dawn of the Dead) but Watchmen is a good example of mixed-feelings. I loved the cinematography and the stylish feel to it but it somehow felt detached, as if it didn't wanted to be in the same room with the others. He handled it quite well and yes, I agree it certainly is beautiful to look at but doesn't really quite match up to the expectations.
The cast was well chosen and Jackie Earle Haley had the top-hand as Rorschach and he handled his character flawlessly. Malin Akerman was a good surprise and she handled her character Silk Spectre well too. The rest of the cast were decent!
In conclusion, I indeed have added it to my "Worst Movies" list but after seeing it for the second time, my feelings have softened and, even though it's gonna remain there, I wouldn't call it "Worst" anymore, but just plain OK. I think Bryan Singer could've done better.
7.5/10
Zack Snyder is a pretty great director and two of his films are some of my favourites (300 & Dawn of the Dead) but Watchmen is a good example of mixed-feelings. I loved the cinematography and the stylish feel to it but it somehow felt detached, as if it didn't wanted to be in the same room with the others. He handled it quite well and yes, I agree it certainly is beautiful to look at but doesn't really quite match up to the expectations.
The cast was well chosen and Jackie Earle Haley had the top-hand as Rorschach and he handled his character flawlessly. Malin Akerman was a good surprise and she handled her character Silk Spectre well too. The rest of the cast were decent!
In conclusion, I indeed have added it to my "Worst Movies" list but after seeing it for the second time, my feelings have softened and, even though it's gonna remain there, I wouldn't call it "Worst" anymore, but just plain OK. I think Bryan Singer could've done better.
7.5/10
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Watchmen review
Posted : 12 years, 7 months ago on 27 September 2011 05:09
This was (dare I say) perfect in the comic book movie genre. I absolutely loved all the characters especially Dr. Manhattan. There was a scene that certainly is not intended for children's eyes, but its not over the top, meaning I have seen worst graphic scenes in Indiana Jones, notably the villains death scenes at the end of each.
They stayed true to the comics and I love the universe they created with Nixon in his 5th term in office, etc.
There are a lot of flashbacks and I think flashbacks within flashbacks but its all good, it wasn't confusing to me and flashbacks within flashbacks can be very confusing if done wrong. The director did a great job wielding the story lines together in 3 1/2 hours. Superb visuals and a fantastic storyline, I was a little upset at the end of what happened to one of the characters, but hey can't have everything.
I would recommend this to anyone who loves comic book movies, however this isn't like your normal comic book movies, as it is grittier and darker then most (think of Sin City or 300). It takes the genre in a different direction much like how Chris Nolan did with the recent installments of Batman (which I also love).
The movie deals with current themes in our world today and for that I think this makes the movie timeless. I certainly can't think of why all the hatred for this movie. Not only did it completely stay true to the original comic, but it did this in such stylized fashion. I have decided that Zack Snyder can do no wrong.
I think most people didn't like this because they thought it was boring. Well if a good story must have non-stop action then this and most movies are not for you. There is great action, yes, but there is also depth to the mythology of the Watchmen world.
They stayed true to the comics and I love the universe they created with Nixon in his 5th term in office, etc.
There are a lot of flashbacks and I think flashbacks within flashbacks but its all good, it wasn't confusing to me and flashbacks within flashbacks can be very confusing if done wrong. The director did a great job wielding the story lines together in 3 1/2 hours. Superb visuals and a fantastic storyline, I was a little upset at the end of what happened to one of the characters, but hey can't have everything.
I would recommend this to anyone who loves comic book movies, however this isn't like your normal comic book movies, as it is grittier and darker then most (think of Sin City or 300). It takes the genre in a different direction much like how Chris Nolan did with the recent installments of Batman (which I also love).
The movie deals with current themes in our world today and for that I think this makes the movie timeless. I certainly can't think of why all the hatred for this movie. Not only did it completely stay true to the original comic, but it did this in such stylized fashion. I have decided that Zack Snyder can do no wrong.
I think most people didn't like this because they thought it was boring. Well if a good story must have non-stop action then this and most movies are not for you. There is great action, yes, but there is also depth to the mythology of the Watchmen world.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
A unique super-hero flick
Posted : 13 years, 1 month ago on 28 March 2011 10:21
I already saw this movie but since it was a while back and since I had it on DVD, I was really eager to check it out again. I remember it very well, back then when it was released, there was a huge buzz about this flick. Eventually, pretty much like 'Sucker Punch' also directed by Zach Snyder, it turned out to be a disappointment at the box-office. I guess it was above all due to the fact that it was dealing with some rather obscure super-heroes and the fact that the tone was seriously bleak didn't help either. Anyway, I thought it was a damned fine feature, in fact, in my opinion, it is one of the best of its genre no less than that. Indeed, it must be the darkest super-hero movie ever made, alongside 'The Dark Knight', and the more I got to know about the characters and their inner struggles, the more I felt captivated by the whole story. Furthermore, I thought it was a really gorgeous movie. Later on, Zack Snyder would be in charge of the DCCEU but, even though I did like 'Man of Steel', eventually, he wasn't really the right guy to carry the whole thing on his shoulders and none of his other movies in the DC universe would be as awesome as this movie was. Anyway, coming back to our main feature, even though I'm not surprised it actually tanked, I thought it was actually quite awesome and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Didn't like it first time but second time, great!
Posted : 13 years, 2 months ago on 4 March 2011 12:21
Just before I first saw Watchmen, expectations were very high and when I did see it for the first time at the cinema, I was incredibly disappointed by it due to its very confusing dialogue, it became quite flat throughout most of the film and I wasn’t very impressed with the acting either although I do admire the director. However, after that second viewing when it was on DVD, I actually really enjoyed it a lot more but I still notice some more of the flaws but not half as many this time. I think the reason for that being was because I understood the story a lot more this time than I did before.
It is something that does have its similarities with the Spider-Man trilogy but the main differences are that it is a team of superheroes and it has a very dark and a very adult friendly story. I was stunned at how great the effects were and also the art direction, costume design and cinematography. Why they weren't possible contenders or even nominated for Academy Awards in those categories, I have absolutely no idea! Understandable, I gather why people perhaps wouldn't like this because of its complex dialogue like I didn't previously why I saw it the first time but I have gathered in films that it sometimes, not always, makes a film more powerful and makes the makers more talented but that can be the case with films and having basic stories so it just depends on the specific film, really.
"Watchmen" is set in an alternate 1985 America in which costumed superheroes are part of the fabric of everyday society, and the "Doomsday Clock" - which charts the USA's tension with the Soviet Union - is permanently set at five minutes to midnight. When one of his former colleagues is murdered, the washed up but no less determined masked vigilante Rorschach sets out to uncover a plot to kill and discredit all past and present superheroes. As he reconnects with his former crime-fighting legion - a ragtag group of retired superheroes, only one of whom has true powers - Rorschach glimpses a wide-ranging and disturbing conspiracy with links to their shared past and catastrophic consequences for the future. Their mission is to watch over humanity... but who is watching the Watchmen?"
Watchmen has a great cast of actors who, in my mind, do give at least a satisfying job but I think for me the best performance will be either Billy Crudup as Jon Ostermon/Dr. Manhattan or Jeffrey Dean Morgan as Edward Blake/The Comedian. Malin Akerman was decent as Laurie Juspeczuk/Silk Spectre II. Malin may have been absolutely gorgeous in it but I don't think she quite bought the complete charm or emotion to the character as suggested in the graphic novel. I like Billy Crudup in general and I think his role in this film is another that I think was great from him. I like the character but I think that there were some moments where I was thinking ''Uhh.. ok'' and slightly lacked the believability of the character. Jackie Earle Haley was great as Walter Korvacs/Rorschach who reminded me a lot of Marv in Sin City who was portrayed by Mickey Rourke due to his unique and rather violent attitudes towards others because of a certain event or a series of events that have occurred in both their pasts. Patrick Wilson was pretty good as Daniel Drieberg/Nite Owl II. Wilson also starred alongside Haley previously in Little Children.Jeffrey Dean Morgan was great as Edward Blake/The Comedian. We only really see him in flashbacks seeing as he was murdered right at the very start of the film (don't worry, it isn't a plot twist, it was in the plot synopsis anyway).
Zack Snyder is a director more of eerie visual effects and very dark and adult stories so in many ways, it is typical that he decided to direct Watchmen seeing as he previously directed Frank Miller graphic novel 300. It is weird because I think where Snyder has his flaws as a director (a bit like Michael Bay but nowhere near as bad as him), is that he just tries too hard and thinks about the effects visually more than the dialogue of the story and the script and I feel that Snyder tries too hard with Watchmen by making it as successful as 300 (regarding box office performance but not completely critically) and I am predicting that he'll do the same with the upcoming film Sucker Punch. I am not saying that he is a bad director, he is just a director who tries too hard at doing almost the exact same thing. There was one thing about Watchmen where I think it has its main weakness is that it is unnecessarily too long. I mean, it is 162 minutes long including the credits and I think it could have been at least 120 minutes (2 hours).
Overall, Watchmen is a very enjoyable film that does have its weaknesses but has its great qualities also. If there are any sequels going to be planned in the future like how the film ended, I would be up for that. I think you really need to stick with the story to fully understand it and perhaps needs to be viewed twice for you to fully understand it especially if you didn't like it the first time you watched it. Great film to watch and I preferred it over Snyder's previous work 300 even though I didn't before.
It is something that does have its similarities with the Spider-Man trilogy but the main differences are that it is a team of superheroes and it has a very dark and a very adult friendly story. I was stunned at how great the effects were and also the art direction, costume design and cinematography. Why they weren't possible contenders or even nominated for Academy Awards in those categories, I have absolutely no idea! Understandable, I gather why people perhaps wouldn't like this because of its complex dialogue like I didn't previously why I saw it the first time but I have gathered in films that it sometimes, not always, makes a film more powerful and makes the makers more talented but that can be the case with films and having basic stories so it just depends on the specific film, really.
"Watchmen" is set in an alternate 1985 America in which costumed superheroes are part of the fabric of everyday society, and the "Doomsday Clock" - which charts the USA's tension with the Soviet Union - is permanently set at five minutes to midnight. When one of his former colleagues is murdered, the washed up but no less determined masked vigilante Rorschach sets out to uncover a plot to kill and discredit all past and present superheroes. As he reconnects with his former crime-fighting legion - a ragtag group of retired superheroes, only one of whom has true powers - Rorschach glimpses a wide-ranging and disturbing conspiracy with links to their shared past and catastrophic consequences for the future. Their mission is to watch over humanity... but who is watching the Watchmen?"
Watchmen has a great cast of actors who, in my mind, do give at least a satisfying job but I think for me the best performance will be either Billy Crudup as Jon Ostermon/Dr. Manhattan or Jeffrey Dean Morgan as Edward Blake/The Comedian. Malin Akerman was decent as Laurie Juspeczuk/Silk Spectre II. Malin may have been absolutely gorgeous in it but I don't think she quite bought the complete charm or emotion to the character as suggested in the graphic novel. I like Billy Crudup in general and I think his role in this film is another that I think was great from him. I like the character but I think that there were some moments where I was thinking ''Uhh.. ok'' and slightly lacked the believability of the character. Jackie Earle Haley was great as Walter Korvacs/Rorschach who reminded me a lot of Marv in Sin City who was portrayed by Mickey Rourke due to his unique and rather violent attitudes towards others because of a certain event or a series of events that have occurred in both their pasts. Patrick Wilson was pretty good as Daniel Drieberg/Nite Owl II. Wilson also starred alongside Haley previously in Little Children.Jeffrey Dean Morgan was great as Edward Blake/The Comedian. We only really see him in flashbacks seeing as he was murdered right at the very start of the film (don't worry, it isn't a plot twist, it was in the plot synopsis anyway).
Zack Snyder is a director more of eerie visual effects and very dark and adult stories so in many ways, it is typical that he decided to direct Watchmen seeing as he previously directed Frank Miller graphic novel 300. It is weird because I think where Snyder has his flaws as a director (a bit like Michael Bay but nowhere near as bad as him), is that he just tries too hard and thinks about the effects visually more than the dialogue of the story and the script and I feel that Snyder tries too hard with Watchmen by making it as successful as 300 (regarding box office performance but not completely critically) and I am predicting that he'll do the same with the upcoming film Sucker Punch. I am not saying that he is a bad director, he is just a director who tries too hard at doing almost the exact same thing. There was one thing about Watchmen where I think it has its main weakness is that it is unnecessarily too long. I mean, it is 162 minutes long including the credits and I think it could have been at least 120 minutes (2 hours).
Overall, Watchmen is a very enjoyable film that does have its weaknesses but has its great qualities also. If there are any sequels going to be planned in the future like how the film ended, I would be up for that. I think you really need to stick with the story to fully understand it and perhaps needs to be viewed twice for you to fully understand it especially if you didn't like it the first time you watched it. Great film to watch and I preferred it over Snyder's previous work 300 even though I didn't before.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Watchmen
Posted : 13 years, 8 months ago on 7 September 2010 01:51
I'd gladly spend 163 minutes reading Rorschach's diary. The occasional voiceovers we get during Watchmen in which that character bluntly spews his not-so-optimistic views on the human race are a delight to listen to, and they pale in comparison to most of the other material that the film's script has to offer. Early in the film, Rorschach says of Manhattan that "the city reeks like an abattoir full of retarded children," and all I could think was, "Wow, can we hear more, please?" Many would agree that the mere presence of the word "abattoir" in there is, like... intellectually orgasmic.
I approached Watchmen with a little trepidation because the consensus appeared to be that you'd be completely lost if you weren't familiar with the graphic novel it's based on. So, I went in making sure to be as attentive as possible, and surprise of surprises, it wasn't hard to do so. Watchmen isn't nearly as confusing for the uninitiated as some are claiming it is. It just demands attention, which should be the case when a film of this genre tackles more adult themes and has more complexity than the average comic-based diversion. The purpose of the R rating isn't simply to allow the characters to say "fuck" as often as they do, but to allow it to explore darker areas of violence and sexuality that are largely absent from most movies of the genre. For most of its first two thirds, I found Watchmen to be engrossing: an expertly-made credit sequence that serves as a great prologue, followed by solid plot and character development.
It's in its final act that Watchmen loses its ability to connect the dots (or rather, it becomes difficult for audience members to connect the dots). This might, indeed, be where the complaint comes that people unfamiliar with the graphic novel will have no idea what's going on, and there are those who will say that you can't criticize that, because maybe the film was intended only for those who have read it. However, it's entirely inevitable that people unfamiliar with the source material were going to want to see it and comment on it, and the filmmakers should've been more than aware of this. There's been many occasions in which, while discussing a movie based on a book with someone, I've said I didn't like the film, and the person will then respond "Ah, well, you should've read the book! If you'd read the book, you would've totally been able to appreciate it." But that's a mistake. A movie is an individual work of art that should stand on its own, and I'm not the first or the last person to say this. The good news is that Watchmen, the film, mostly pulls this off, but loses its way towards the end, and it appears that the filmmakers realized this, too, as the climactic scenes feature a heavy dose of explanation that seems to be trying to fill in too many holes.
Now, if the confusing last segment of Watchmen were the only flaw to be found here, I'd still gladly give the film a recommendation, but sadly, there are other problems. While the movie is generally very well-shot and engaging, the fight sequences are incredibly generic, particularly for something of this genre. One of the biggest problems to come from this is the moment when the film intercuts between the television interview that Dr. Manhattan takes part in and the fight sequence involving Dan and Miss Jupiter. Dr. Manhattan's interview is one of the most dramatically effective moments in the film, and the decision to intercut this with that stale fight sequence proves to be a very bad one. The only exception to the mediocrity of the fight sequences takes place during the prison scenes in which Rorschach, whose real name is revealed to be Walter Kovacs (Jackie Earle Haley) kicks some major ass. Interestingly enough, Haley also proves to be the exception in terms of the quality of the performances, seeing as he's the only one who gives an authentic one. As Dan, Patrick Wilson (whose work I normally admire) is curiously artificial in many a scene. Malin Akerman gives an uneven performance as Miss Jupiter; sometimes she's good, and other times, particularly during the last scenes, not at all. Matthew Goode gives us a blah villain in Adrian, which is the opposite of what you can say of his deliciously evil work in The Lookout.
One can't help but notice the film's desire to identify itself as an unconventional story by having Adrian say towards the end that he's "not a comic book villain." This is somewhat reminiscent of some of the final lines spoken last year in the superior The Dark Knight, but it just doesn't work as well in Watchmen, because the words were spoken with more poignancy in the former film, and because the climax of Christopher Nolan's film was far stronger than what we get here. While I applaud the fact that Watchmen delves into deeper, darker waters and that it manages to be both complex and involving for most of its running time, there are too many elements that keep this from being a complete success. One of the last few lines spoken in the film is "Nothing ever ends," which I suspect may reflect the frustration of some viewers who will feel the strain of sitting in a theater for so long. While I didn't find the Watchmen experience to be painful, it doesn't end up providing the satisfaction that a film so heavy should deliver. As I said, I'd rather spend 163 minutes relishing Rorschach's acerbic musings instead.
I approached Watchmen with a little trepidation because the consensus appeared to be that you'd be completely lost if you weren't familiar with the graphic novel it's based on. So, I went in making sure to be as attentive as possible, and surprise of surprises, it wasn't hard to do so. Watchmen isn't nearly as confusing for the uninitiated as some are claiming it is. It just demands attention, which should be the case when a film of this genre tackles more adult themes and has more complexity than the average comic-based diversion. The purpose of the R rating isn't simply to allow the characters to say "fuck" as often as they do, but to allow it to explore darker areas of violence and sexuality that are largely absent from most movies of the genre. For most of its first two thirds, I found Watchmen to be engrossing: an expertly-made credit sequence that serves as a great prologue, followed by solid plot and character development.
It's in its final act that Watchmen loses its ability to connect the dots (or rather, it becomes difficult for audience members to connect the dots). This might, indeed, be where the complaint comes that people unfamiliar with the graphic novel will have no idea what's going on, and there are those who will say that you can't criticize that, because maybe the film was intended only for those who have read it. However, it's entirely inevitable that people unfamiliar with the source material were going to want to see it and comment on it, and the filmmakers should've been more than aware of this. There's been many occasions in which, while discussing a movie based on a book with someone, I've said I didn't like the film, and the person will then respond "Ah, well, you should've read the book! If you'd read the book, you would've totally been able to appreciate it." But that's a mistake. A movie is an individual work of art that should stand on its own, and I'm not the first or the last person to say this. The good news is that Watchmen, the film, mostly pulls this off, but loses its way towards the end, and it appears that the filmmakers realized this, too, as the climactic scenes feature a heavy dose of explanation that seems to be trying to fill in too many holes.
Now, if the confusing last segment of Watchmen were the only flaw to be found here, I'd still gladly give the film a recommendation, but sadly, there are other problems. While the movie is generally very well-shot and engaging, the fight sequences are incredibly generic, particularly for something of this genre. One of the biggest problems to come from this is the moment when the film intercuts between the television interview that Dr. Manhattan takes part in and the fight sequence involving Dan and Miss Jupiter. Dr. Manhattan's interview is one of the most dramatically effective moments in the film, and the decision to intercut this with that stale fight sequence proves to be a very bad one. The only exception to the mediocrity of the fight sequences takes place during the prison scenes in which Rorschach, whose real name is revealed to be Walter Kovacs (Jackie Earle Haley) kicks some major ass. Interestingly enough, Haley also proves to be the exception in terms of the quality of the performances, seeing as he's the only one who gives an authentic one. As Dan, Patrick Wilson (whose work I normally admire) is curiously artificial in many a scene. Malin Akerman gives an uneven performance as Miss Jupiter; sometimes she's good, and other times, particularly during the last scenes, not at all. Matthew Goode gives us a blah villain in Adrian, which is the opposite of what you can say of his deliciously evil work in The Lookout.
One can't help but notice the film's desire to identify itself as an unconventional story by having Adrian say towards the end that he's "not a comic book villain." This is somewhat reminiscent of some of the final lines spoken last year in the superior The Dark Knight, but it just doesn't work as well in Watchmen, because the words were spoken with more poignancy in the former film, and because the climax of Christopher Nolan's film was far stronger than what we get here. While I applaud the fact that Watchmen delves into deeper, darker waters and that it manages to be both complex and involving for most of its running time, there are too many elements that keep this from being a complete success. One of the last few lines spoken in the film is "Nothing ever ends," which I suspect may reflect the frustration of some viewers who will feel the strain of sitting in a theater for so long. While I didn't find the Watchmen experience to be painful, it doesn't end up providing the satisfaction that a film so heavy should deliver. As I said, I'd rather spend 163 minutes relishing Rorschach's acerbic musings instead.
0 comments, Reply to this entry