I don't know why there are so many negative reviews of this show. If you like dating shows, I recommend this one as well. The host is hot and usually pretty funny in a sarcastic. She has no illusions that this is masterpiece theater. The contestants are generally good looking and many if not all of them are aspiring actors or models, but that doesn't mean there attempt at romance isn't real! I'm not sure how successful or long-lasting any of the connections on the show are, but it's not like the Bachelor is bumping out a lot of happily ever after either! Plus, one half hour of this gets you the same bang for your book that it takes an entire season of the Bachelor to get! One of the things that bother me about this show is that the two primary contestants have to agree which competitors to eliminate. How often do too men or women agree on potential choices in a date? When they don't, they just decide with a coin flip. When they can't agree which final contestant too date out of two choices, why not just let each date their own choice?
Reviews
10 Reviews
Everybody's Fine
(2009)
Deceptively depressing
10 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
"Everybody's Fine" should instead be called "Everybody's in Denial"(or maybe just Robert Deniro's character). I bought this at a thrift store, and it was not worth the money even at that low price. I bought this mainly because Kate Beckinsale is in it, but I also like Robert Deniro. I was expecting something lighthearted, but this was one of the most depressing movies I've ever seen. The back cover promises that you will "laugh and cry". I certainly didn't laugh. What little attempts at humor are in this are not at all funny. I didn't literally cry, but I sure felt worse for watching it. Maybe it was expecting something similar to Deniro's character in the "Meet the Parents" series, but all I got was a sad depressed old man. Not that Deniro's acting(or anyone else's) was bad in this movie, the story was just huge downer. It's about a guy after his wive dies, and his children practically never talk to him. They would talk to their mother more, and now that she's gone they rarely if ever call their dad. The idea that children talk to their mother more is believable, but now they have HUGE things going on in their lives that they don't even bother to mention to their dad. They even go way out of their way to deceive him when he goes to visit. Can a family really be like this? It just doesn't seem believable.
Let's Pollute
(2009)
piece of trash
13 February 2011
I saw this as part of special presentation of all the Oscar nominees(plus some titles that didn't make the cut but were still "well commended) in this category. This is probably the worst cartoon in the bunch. I assume that it was nominated mainly due to its liberal slant. Centuries of human civilization are belittled as nothing more than a bunch of pollution. Corporations are similarly maligned as polluters. Seem fairly black and white for an ideology that so often loves to dwell on the "grayness" of things. What about the civilized people and the corporations who help make movies like this? Are they nothing but polluters too? What do the makers of this movie want? Should everyone just go live in a cave or something? I really hope this doesn't win. Conserve your own resources-financial or otherwise- but not seeing this garbage.
Ties That Bind
(2010 TV Movie)
good for lifetime
28 November 2010
No, this is not great movie. Nor is it the most morally uplifting film ever made. But it is just right if you are looking for a decent TV movie. It has beautiful women(particularly the lead), romance, intrigue, suspense, and some really good plot twists. What more could you ask for from a Lifetime movie?
I'm not sure why other people are giving this flick such low ratings. And average lifetime movie seems to get around a 5 and a good one 6. Based on those numbers, I myself am giving this movie a 6. It's a lot better than some of the stuff on the Lifetime networks. Anyway, it's worth at least one watch.
I'm not sure why other people are giving this flick such low ratings. And average lifetime movie seems to get around a 5 and a good one 6. Based on those numbers, I myself am giving this movie a 6. It's a lot better than some of the stuff on the Lifetime networks. Anyway, it's worth at least one watch.
Dear John
(I) (2010)
bad girl porn
15 June 2010
I am a male, but I do like some romantic comedies. Before I saw it, all I really knew about this movie was that it was a romance and it had Amanda Seyfried in it. Yes, Miss Seyfried is beautiful. Also. Mr. Tatum provides plenty of eye candy for the women(and men of a different sexual persuasion, I suppose). Seyfried's acting is OK, but Tatum's is fairly terrible. His wooden performance and his looks would make him perfect to be a third love interest for Bella Swan in the Twilight movies.
Like Twilight, this movie is pure girl porn! I felt like I needed a brown paper bag just to take it from the Red Box. The movie starts off as a fairly sweet love story:soldier on leave meets college student on spring break(one that apparently lasts two or three weeks,oddly), they fall in love over the next few weeks, they have to go their separate ways but agree to write each other letters(only snail mail, no email and very little cell phone interaction; This is all justified by just saying that he's in some far off desolate places for the military where they don't have email, etc),etc. He's only supposed to be away for a year, but then Sept. 11 happens and he re-enlists for two more years at least. She oppose this, but he does it anyway. This is perhaps a mistake in terms of their relationship, but it is understandable.
As he stays overseas at war, her letters start coming less frequently. Finally, she sends him a stereotpyical "dear john" letter(what else, give this movie's title?) where she tells him that she is now engaged to another man. Up to this point, everything seems sad but believable. It makes sense that she would move on and marry someone else with him gone for so long, but the reason eventually given just seems ridiculous to me. Her proverbial "dear john" letter, causes him to burn all his other letters from her, and he stays overseas in the military for a few more years.
He is finally brought up by his father's impending death. The subplot with his father is actually one of the better parts of the movie, the constant reference to coins is annoying(though necessary, I suppose, given his father's apparent autism and his obsession with coins). Anyway, he stops by the ranch owned by Seyfried's character. He finds he there, and they talk.
Here is where the story jumped the shark for me. We find out that he man she married is actually her much older family friend- a single dad whose son also has autism. The man got cancer, and somehow Seyfried's character got so entangled in the lives of him and his son that she actually married. From the dialogue, it doesn't seem like she really ever loves him like a husband. In fact, she seems to still love Tatum's character like that the whole time. But she says that she "had no choice". Really? Certainly, there are other things she could have done to help a much older man with cancer whose son has autism. Did she really have to marry him even if she didn't love him like that? Did they ever actually engage in marital relations, or was this just a scheme to get her guardianship of the boy when his dad dies? Aren't there easier ways to do that? And surely her family could have helped give him financial support during his cancer without her marrying him. He was an old family friend. Maybe the book explains the situation better, but it just seemed kinda ludicrous to me.
Then there's the end. Tatum's character and her husband get an "anonymous" donation(three guesses as to who the donor is!) that allows him to get an experimental treatment. From what I gather on the internet, the book ends with her husband living for a while longer and her not seeing Tatum's character again. That is also the alternate ending of the movie. But the more "happy" ending use in the movie is that the "miracle drug" only gives her huband a few more months(some miracle). He dies, then Tatum and Seyfried are free to get back together. We see them meeting again at the end of the movie. Which ending is better? The alternate ending seems more true to the spirit of the story. The actual movie ending seems like a typical cheap movie sellout. It doesn't really matter to me though. The story seemed somewhat implausible to me anyway. Also, the dialogie is not very good. The part at the beginning about Tatum's character being a "coin in the army" is just laughable. If this is what a typical Nicholas Sparks book/movie is like, I should probably skip the rest of them.
Like Twilight, this movie is pure girl porn! I felt like I needed a brown paper bag just to take it from the Red Box. The movie starts off as a fairly sweet love story:soldier on leave meets college student on spring break(one that apparently lasts two or three weeks,oddly), they fall in love over the next few weeks, they have to go their separate ways but agree to write each other letters(only snail mail, no email and very little cell phone interaction; This is all justified by just saying that he's in some far off desolate places for the military where they don't have email, etc),etc. He's only supposed to be away for a year, but then Sept. 11 happens and he re-enlists for two more years at least. She oppose this, but he does it anyway. This is perhaps a mistake in terms of their relationship, but it is understandable.
As he stays overseas at war, her letters start coming less frequently. Finally, she sends him a stereotpyical "dear john" letter(what else, give this movie's title?) where she tells him that she is now engaged to another man. Up to this point, everything seems sad but believable. It makes sense that she would move on and marry someone else with him gone for so long, but the reason eventually given just seems ridiculous to me. Her proverbial "dear john" letter, causes him to burn all his other letters from her, and he stays overseas in the military for a few more years.
He is finally brought up by his father's impending death. The subplot with his father is actually one of the better parts of the movie, the constant reference to coins is annoying(though necessary, I suppose, given his father's apparent autism and his obsession with coins). Anyway, he stops by the ranch owned by Seyfried's character. He finds he there, and they talk.
Here is where the story jumped the shark for me. We find out that he man she married is actually her much older family friend- a single dad whose son also has autism. The man got cancer, and somehow Seyfried's character got so entangled in the lives of him and his son that she actually married. From the dialogue, it doesn't seem like she really ever loves him like a husband. In fact, she seems to still love Tatum's character like that the whole time. But she says that she "had no choice". Really? Certainly, there are other things she could have done to help a much older man with cancer whose son has autism. Did she really have to marry him even if she didn't love him like that? Did they ever actually engage in marital relations, or was this just a scheme to get her guardianship of the boy when his dad dies? Aren't there easier ways to do that? And surely her family could have helped give him financial support during his cancer without her marrying him. He was an old family friend. Maybe the book explains the situation better, but it just seemed kinda ludicrous to me.
Then there's the end. Tatum's character and her husband get an "anonymous" donation(three guesses as to who the donor is!) that allows him to get an experimental treatment. From what I gather on the internet, the book ends with her husband living for a while longer and her not seeing Tatum's character again. That is also the alternate ending of the movie. But the more "happy" ending use in the movie is that the "miracle drug" only gives her huband a few more months(some miracle). He dies, then Tatum and Seyfried are free to get back together. We see them meeting again at the end of the movie. Which ending is better? The alternate ending seems more true to the spirit of the story. The actual movie ending seems like a typical cheap movie sellout. It doesn't really matter to me though. The story seemed somewhat implausible to me anyway. Also, the dialogie is not very good. The part at the beginning about Tatum's character being a "coin in the army" is just laughable. If this is what a typical Nicholas Sparks book/movie is like, I should probably skip the rest of them.
Uncertainty
(2008)
the real uncertainty is whether this is a good movie.
5 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I think this is a good movie, but not a great one. The acting is good. The plots(there were really two distinct ones)were intriguing but incomplete.
The whole movie is based on choice made by Bobby and Kate,a young couple. After the choice-whether to spend the 4th of July with the Kate's family or not- is made, the story switches back and forth between the two different scenarios that would have played out based in either choice. The plot gimmick is interesting if not entirely original. As others have mentioned, it is certainly similar to "Run, Lola, Run"(Since I haven't seen that film in awhile, I'm not entirely sure how similar this movie is. I do think that "Lola" was better from what I remember though). Each choice essentially leads to a radically different movie- one domestic drama involving Kate's family and the other was about the couple in the middle of mob war over a lost cell phone( As one reviewer put it, the former plot is probably more interesting to women and the latter to men.)
The contrasts and connections between these intertwined stories made for a good movie, but neither plot was fully developed. We learn some information about the character through the two stories, but so much is left unexplained. Who are the mobsters? A possible explanation is offered, but never confirmed. Why don't the main characters eat meat anymore? It apparently has something to do with her mother, but that is never fully explained either. How did her brother die? No further information is offered. What ultimately happens to the stray dog that they pick up in the former scenario?
Each story offers yet more choices to for the couple. The main uncertainty in the domestic story is that Kate is pregnant and doesn't know whether to have the baby. The main choice in the other scenario is what to do about the mysterious and evidently valuable cell phone they have acquired. Unfortunately, neither scenario is offered much of a resolution. The pregnancy question is left undecided. the couple finally gets rid of the cell phone in the other scenario, but much is still left unresolved. The mobsters already know who Bobby is and they have tracked him down pretty easily throughout the movie. Won't they just come after him again? Also, the pregnancy is obviously still a reality in that scenario as well. How would such a harrowing experience affect that decision? I'd imagine that they would grow close and the prospective of raising a family together wouldn't be so scary. As a side note, just the fact that a couple in their late 20's/early 30's(it's not clear exactly how old either is supposed to be in the movie) are so indecisive about carrying to term a pregnancy speaks volumes about our culture(and not in a good way).
Also, the plot device might have been more interesting if it had evolved around the major choices(what to do with the pregnancy or the cell phone) instead of a minor one. The whole drama about making a choice might have been bigger if the possible choices had bigger apparent consequences then possibly making her mother upset or blowing off their friend's party. The whole mcguffin about finding a lost cell phone and getting involved in a mob war was something that could have just as easily happened in the other scenario. They had no idea that was would happen when they made the choice. What is this move saying? Are we supposed to be afraid or worried about every minor choice and the possible unknown, outlandish consequence that could result from it?
For me, this movie was two decent stories that never really coalesced or gave much closure to the viewer. It was good, but it could have been better. Perhaps the makers of this film should dwell on some of their own choices...
The whole movie is based on choice made by Bobby and Kate,a young couple. After the choice-whether to spend the 4th of July with the Kate's family or not- is made, the story switches back and forth between the two different scenarios that would have played out based in either choice. The plot gimmick is interesting if not entirely original. As others have mentioned, it is certainly similar to "Run, Lola, Run"(Since I haven't seen that film in awhile, I'm not entirely sure how similar this movie is. I do think that "Lola" was better from what I remember though). Each choice essentially leads to a radically different movie- one domestic drama involving Kate's family and the other was about the couple in the middle of mob war over a lost cell phone( As one reviewer put it, the former plot is probably more interesting to women and the latter to men.)
The contrasts and connections between these intertwined stories made for a good movie, but neither plot was fully developed. We learn some information about the character through the two stories, but so much is left unexplained. Who are the mobsters? A possible explanation is offered, but never confirmed. Why don't the main characters eat meat anymore? It apparently has something to do with her mother, but that is never fully explained either. How did her brother die? No further information is offered. What ultimately happens to the stray dog that they pick up in the former scenario?
Each story offers yet more choices to for the couple. The main uncertainty in the domestic story is that Kate is pregnant and doesn't know whether to have the baby. The main choice in the other scenario is what to do about the mysterious and evidently valuable cell phone they have acquired. Unfortunately, neither scenario is offered much of a resolution. The pregnancy question is left undecided. the couple finally gets rid of the cell phone in the other scenario, but much is still left unresolved. The mobsters already know who Bobby is and they have tracked him down pretty easily throughout the movie. Won't they just come after him again? Also, the pregnancy is obviously still a reality in that scenario as well. How would such a harrowing experience affect that decision? I'd imagine that they would grow close and the prospective of raising a family together wouldn't be so scary. As a side note, just the fact that a couple in their late 20's/early 30's(it's not clear exactly how old either is supposed to be in the movie) are so indecisive about carrying to term a pregnancy speaks volumes about our culture(and not in a good way).
Also, the plot device might have been more interesting if it had evolved around the major choices(what to do with the pregnancy or the cell phone) instead of a minor one. The whole drama about making a choice might have been bigger if the possible choices had bigger apparent consequences then possibly making her mother upset or blowing off their friend's party. The whole mcguffin about finding a lost cell phone and getting involved in a mob war was something that could have just as easily happened in the other scenario. They had no idea that was would happen when they made the choice. What is this move saying? Are we supposed to be afraid or worried about every minor choice and the possible unknown, outlandish consequence that could result from it?
For me, this movie was two decent stories that never really coalesced or gave much closure to the viewer. It was good, but it could have been better. Perhaps the makers of this film should dwell on some of their own choices...
Funny People
(2009)
a confused story
8 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is hard to assess. It starts out an good story about a famous comedian( Adam Sandler essentially playing himself) about to die. Since Apatow's previous movies focused on birth(Knocked Up) and growing up(both Virgin and Knocked Up), it made some sense for this film to focus on death. There's a lot of interesting pathos in here. Even death is a joke to Sandler's character.
But before we get the "punchline", the comedian's terminal disease is cured almost miraculously with an experimental medicine. It is here that the movie starts to take a turn for the worse. Even though Sandler's character doesn't actually die in the end, Apatow could have still pulled off a great film that was funny and more serious than before.
Given a reprieve from his death sentence, the comedian's new problem is figuring out not how to die but how to live again. That is a challenge which he fails at first. His attempt to seize life to the fullest leads to him having an affair with his now-married ex-girlfriend. As some critics have already complained, almost the entire second half of the film gets swallowed up by this bizarre plot twist. The comedian goes from a sympathetic dying man to just a pathetic jerk. There is some redemption in the end, but the movie has already run about half an hour to long at that point. Two hours is enough time for a comedy, including this one.
Apatow seems to be making more mature movie than before, but his style hasn't quite reached adulthood yet. Like Kevin Smith, Apatow seems to have a love/hate relationship with "dick and fart" jokes. While these directors have made such humor the bread and butter of their films, they both have tried to get more serious as thir work progressed. But in attempting to do so, they risk losing their core fan base. Smith's failed attempt at a more serious film sans constant vulgar, juvenile humor -Jersey Girl- is probably not something Apatow would like to emulate. Since this is a movie about comedians, most of the crude humor comes through their stand-up acts. The joke style becomes more funny as a kind of meta-joke about comedians than for the content of most of the jokes themselves(though there are plenty of funny lines in the movie).
But before we get the "punchline", the comedian's terminal disease is cured almost miraculously with an experimental medicine. It is here that the movie starts to take a turn for the worse. Even though Sandler's character doesn't actually die in the end, Apatow could have still pulled off a great film that was funny and more serious than before.
Given a reprieve from his death sentence, the comedian's new problem is figuring out not how to die but how to live again. That is a challenge which he fails at first. His attempt to seize life to the fullest leads to him having an affair with his now-married ex-girlfriend. As some critics have already complained, almost the entire second half of the film gets swallowed up by this bizarre plot twist. The comedian goes from a sympathetic dying man to just a pathetic jerk. There is some redemption in the end, but the movie has already run about half an hour to long at that point. Two hours is enough time for a comedy, including this one.
Apatow seems to be making more mature movie than before, but his style hasn't quite reached adulthood yet. Like Kevin Smith, Apatow seems to have a love/hate relationship with "dick and fart" jokes. While these directors have made such humor the bread and butter of their films, they both have tried to get more serious as thir work progressed. But in attempting to do so, they risk losing their core fan base. Smith's failed attempt at a more serious film sans constant vulgar, juvenile humor -Jersey Girl- is probably not something Apatow would like to emulate. Since this is a movie about comedians, most of the crude humor comes through their stand-up acts. The joke style becomes more funny as a kind of meta-joke about comedians than for the content of most of the jokes themselves(though there are plenty of funny lines in the movie).
Jack and Jill vs. the World
(2008)
good, but not great like "Bride"
2 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This is a sweet movie, but it is not quite as good as "Kiss the Bride"- Parisse's previous venture. This movie is a more conventional romantic comedy than that. While "Bride" was like an Italian version of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"(though better), this is about a couple just getting to know each other.
Evidently, this was one of Freddie Prinze's first adult roles. Maybe he should call himself Fred if he wants to be taken seriously. He certainly had a deeper voice in this movie, but the role really wasn't much different from some of his earlier roles("Down To You", "She's All That", etc.)- a young man unsure of what he wants out of life and love.
I thought Taryn Manning gave a better performance. Her character's disease was an interesting(though probably not original) twist on the typical love story. I felt sorry for her and the sick girl.
The story is pretty clichéd. A cynical man falls for a his exact opposite-a free-spirited woman. But clichéd stories are usually so because there is a truth in them that is worth repeating. The love between a man and a woman is just such an idea(though some would decry it as being too "heteronormative").
Personally, I was disappointed that such love and the attendant sex was treated in such a morally lax way. I know it may be too "old-fashioned" for most viewers, but I value movies that emphasize the beauty and importance of marriage. Ordinarily, it would be pointless to make light of that with regard to a modern movie. However, Parisse did to a good job of presenting that view of marriage in "Bride". For that and other reasons, I would say that Parisse's earlier movie is better than this one. Of course, the two characters here probably get married at some point in the future. All we can do is infer.
Evidently, this was one of Freddie Prinze's first adult roles. Maybe he should call himself Fred if he wants to be taken seriously. He certainly had a deeper voice in this movie, but the role really wasn't much different from some of his earlier roles("Down To You", "She's All That", etc.)- a young man unsure of what he wants out of life and love.
I thought Taryn Manning gave a better performance. Her character's disease was an interesting(though probably not original) twist on the typical love story. I felt sorry for her and the sick girl.
The story is pretty clichéd. A cynical man falls for a his exact opposite-a free-spirited woman. But clichéd stories are usually so because there is a truth in them that is worth repeating. The love between a man and a woman is just such an idea(though some would decry it as being too "heteronormative").
Personally, I was disappointed that such love and the attendant sex was treated in such a morally lax way. I know it may be too "old-fashioned" for most viewers, but I value movies that emphasize the beauty and importance of marriage. Ordinarily, it would be pointless to make light of that with regard to a modern movie. However, Parisse did to a good job of presenting that view of marriage in "Bride". For that and other reasons, I would say that Parisse's earlier movie is better than this one. Of course, the two characters here probably get married at some point in the future. All we can do is infer.
Kiss the Bride
(2002)
incredible movie
2 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
When I first saw this on TV, I thought it would be just another bland chick flick. I missed part of it, so I ended up renting it later. This is actually an excellent film-a moving drama about a family. Yes, there is some decent comedy too. The plot revolves around three sisters coming home for their other sister's wedding. The sisters all have different personalities and lifestyles- each one being an archetype/stereotype(I think).
The family is this film is Italian and Catholic, so that colored the film. I'm not Italian, so I didn't really relate much to that aspect. I did appreciate the Catholicism in the film since I myself am Catholic.
I admired Danni and her fiancée for remaining true to their faith by waiting for marriage to make love. That is a hard thing to do, especially in this over-sexed culture. Her three sisters don't make it any easier for her. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying she was perfect. They are all flawed but interesting characters in their own ways. I'm not sure why Danni thought she was ugly compared to her other sisters. I thought she was the most beautiful one of all(on the inside and the outside)!
There were a couple of "Catholic" things in the movie that seemed strange or just wrong to me. I've never heard of a "bed blessing" before. Is that some old Italian Catholic thing? I like most of what the mother said about sex, but she is wrong to buy into the canard that the Church forbids or frowns upon sexual pleasure(a common misconception). The Catholic Church teaches that sexual pleasure is a good thing if it is gained in the proper moral, marital context- the exact situation that Danni's mom was discussing. Maybe the Church didn't always do a good job teaching that in the past, or maybe their opponents have just been good at spreading misinformation and half truths.
I don't want to dwell on that one scene. The movie is generally quite good. Yes, this is mostly a chick flick, but it is a magnificent one. That means a lot coming from a man!
The family is this film is Italian and Catholic, so that colored the film. I'm not Italian, so I didn't really relate much to that aspect. I did appreciate the Catholicism in the film since I myself am Catholic.
I admired Danni and her fiancée for remaining true to their faith by waiting for marriage to make love. That is a hard thing to do, especially in this over-sexed culture. Her three sisters don't make it any easier for her. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying she was perfect. They are all flawed but interesting characters in their own ways. I'm not sure why Danni thought she was ugly compared to her other sisters. I thought she was the most beautiful one of all(on the inside and the outside)!
There were a couple of "Catholic" things in the movie that seemed strange or just wrong to me. I've never heard of a "bed blessing" before. Is that some old Italian Catholic thing? I like most of what the mother said about sex, but she is wrong to buy into the canard that the Church forbids or frowns upon sexual pleasure(a common misconception). The Catholic Church teaches that sexual pleasure is a good thing if it is gained in the proper moral, marital context- the exact situation that Danni's mom was discussing. Maybe the Church didn't always do a good job teaching that in the past, or maybe their opponents have just been good at spreading misinformation and half truths.
I don't want to dwell on that one scene. The movie is generally quite good. Yes, this is mostly a chick flick, but it is a magnificent one. That means a lot coming from a man!
Watchmen
(2009)
good, not great
7 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is mixed bag. The plot is intriguing. The special effects are well done. The acting is decent. The movie's creators were very faithful to the source material-almost slavishly so.
I think it was mistake to set the movie in the same era as the comic. The comic took place in the 80's, but that is when it was written. Perhaps they could have updated the story as "Iron Man" did last year. All the old music and cultural reference made me fell like I was watching one of those TV movies like "The Sixties" or "The Seventies" that NBC did a while ago. They should have toned it down a little. Not only is it the 80's, it's an alternate 80's where Nixon is still president. (What is with Nixon being so prominently featured in movies lately?) If they took the Nixon scenes out, I would not complain. That aspect of the movie might have been very confusing if I hadn't already read the comic.
The violence and the sexual content in the movie were graphic, even more so than in the comic from what people have said. I don't remember because I haven't read it in a while. The characters are all morally ambiguous for the most part. Some of the nihilism and reductionism(probably from the comic itself) just seems silly, particularly Dr. Manhattan's comment about living and dead organisms being indistinguishable because they have the same number of particles.
I though the complex interplay of good and evil was much more well done in the Dark Knight. On the other hand, Rorshach's devotion to truth here is more admirable than Batman's was at the end of the latter movie.
I think it was mistake to set the movie in the same era as the comic. The comic took place in the 80's, but that is when it was written. Perhaps they could have updated the story as "Iron Man" did last year. All the old music and cultural reference made me fell like I was watching one of those TV movies like "The Sixties" or "The Seventies" that NBC did a while ago. They should have toned it down a little. Not only is it the 80's, it's an alternate 80's where Nixon is still president. (What is with Nixon being so prominently featured in movies lately?) If they took the Nixon scenes out, I would not complain. That aspect of the movie might have been very confusing if I hadn't already read the comic.
The violence and the sexual content in the movie were graphic, even more so than in the comic from what people have said. I don't remember because I haven't read it in a while. The characters are all morally ambiguous for the most part. Some of the nihilism and reductionism(probably from the comic itself) just seems silly, particularly Dr. Manhattan's comment about living and dead organisms being indistinguishable because they have the same number of particles.
I though the complex interplay of good and evil was much more well done in the Dark Knight. On the other hand, Rorshach's devotion to truth here is more admirable than Batman's was at the end of the latter movie.
Tell Your Friends