Comments on: The big blue junk (a “Watchmen” addendum)

By: stlbud

stlbud — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:21:09 +0000

AMEN!

By: The BallistiK Blog » Fresh From Twitter today

The BallistiK Blog » Fresh From Twitter today — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:52:22 +0000

[...] post: The big blue junk (a â€œWatchmenâ€ addendum) http://themolly.com/blog/?p=146 Contains minor spoilers. [...]

By: gconnery

gconnery — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 06:39:55 +0000

Molly, couldn’t agree with you more. I loved the film, and mostly the violence didn’t bother me that much (though the off-at-the-elbows scene in the jail I actually looked away from) but the blue penis? Seriously? That’s what everybody is upset about? And the boring love scene? Come on…

Of course the movie is imperfect. The girl who plays Silk Spectre isn’t very good. The ending is plain out stupid. And of course they kill the best character. But I still loved it.

If it was up to me, I’d have toned down the violence a bit, and shortened it a little. But I’m okay with how it turned out. Its what it was meant to be. They hired Snyder because he had done 300 as a literal translation, and that’s what everybody wanted here. And made tons of money at it. Doesn’t feel like this one is going to be as successful, but we’ll see.

And my favorite Jackie Earl Haley movie was Breaking Away. 1979. Boy this guy has been around for a while…

By: bigempty

bigempty — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 02:22:45 +0000

I was under the impression it was RATED R for a reason. The movie followed the graphic novel pretty close including the blue penis. The director Zach Snyder did the remake of Dawn of the Dead as well so I knew what I was getting into when I saw it. One more thing to point out….it’s just a movie. I enjoyed visual style of the movie along with the ambient score they had. The actor Jackie Earle Haley who played Rorschach was awesome!!! He was in The original Bad News Bears as Kelly Leak!

By: donriho

donriho — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:43:44 +0000

TrishMvhl, you are sure right about one thing – I was sadly misinformed about this movie. I have never read the novel, never even heard of it. A friend told me it was based on a “graphic cartoon”. Teach me to listen to him. I would have been a little better prepared when I took my wife to see it. Oh well, live and learn.

By: TrishMvhl

TrishMvhl — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:04:31 +0000

The skull cleavering was done in silhouette, but still brutal. The violence is scattered… not constantly in your face. Fighting off a gang of thugs in an alley isn’t going to be pretty. If they wanted to tone it down the movie would’ve been rated “PG”. I had moments of wincing for sure but I wasn’t expecting it to be sanitized for my protection. Everyone’s comfort level is different of course… what’s unbearable for one person may be just unpleasant to another. You just have to make a judgement call.

Donriho, this film was *never* advertised as based on a cartoon. You were either misinformed or misremembered. It’s faithfully based on the graphic novel. The fact that it is rated “R” should be a flag to parents that this is not intended for young kids.

I loved the film but I’m a bit biased. An yes, I find the puritanical streak in this country regarding the human body ridiculous.

By: thespian

thespian — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:47:27 +0000

donriho: when on earth was it advertised as based on a cartoon?

It is based on the graphic novel that is the compiled book from the 12 issue miniseries. At no point has anyone implied it as being from some cheerful cartoon, and dude, it’s directed by the guy who did *300*.

The movie has been rated Rated R, for ‘strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language’. Any parent who ignores the rating in order to take a child in is, in my opinion, sort of an idiot.

By: Maize

Maize — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:33:37 +0000

I must give out some massive kudos. I’ve actually not seen the movie yet (will be soon), so I can’t say that I agree or disagree about this film. However, it bothers me immensely that you can show someone’s face being cleft open with a chainsaw then slow-mo zoom in to detail of their brain being ground into a fine slurry by the chain on prime-time television (on any of the forensics shows, say), but if you show an erect penis in a film you’re an evil corrupter and you also garner an X or maybe NC-17 rating.

That said, I can’t agree with the comment that it’s problematic that the movie is based on a “cartoon”. On the one hand, the film is rated R in the U.S. The full rating is: “Rated R for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language.” If a parent insists on bringing a child to an R-rated film, then I really don’t think that it’s the film’s fault if the child is scarred by the experience. Also, all of the media indicates that this isn’t a happy-go-lucky “cartoon”. And lastly, it’s hardly reprehensible to advertise a film as being based on a graphic novel is the film really is based on a graphic novel. If anything, maybe it should serve as a wake-up call to parents who think that cartoons and graphic novels and movies based thereon are automatically safe for small children.

By: donriho

donriho — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:50:41 +0000

I hate the fact that this is advertised as based on a cartoon. I wonder how many parents will bring their kids in to watch this decidedly violent and altogether terrible film.

By: Ankhwatcher

Ankhwatcher — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:09:31 +0000

Did you notice the only change made to the story that wasn’t made to increase the pace?
The Graphic Novel says that The Silhouette and her partner were murdered ‘by an old enemy’ after she was kicked out of the Minutemen (when exposed as a lesbian). But in the movie she was overtly homosexual from the start, and her death was a hate-crime.

I have to say I didn’t read from novel that the hero’s would have super-human strength, I was quite surprised (and very excited) to see them flinging bad guys through the air.
I felt the replaced threat of extinction didn’t make a lot of sense. (I’d say more, but it would ruin the plot.