One thing I’ve heard about Watchmen (and I finally noticed it in the IMAX version of the trailer last night) is that Rorschach’s mask is constantly morphing and changing. While his mask does change from frame to frame in the comic, it’s a symbolic element and not an literal aspect of the mask itself. Giving it a “life” of its own seems to me to be a misreading of the character.

But I admit the trailer looks pretty impressive on that massive screen.

Even though the film is an exact replication of the comic, there is something much more unsettling to watching live action versus pictures drawn on the page.

But then again, it’s not really an action dominated comic so maybe that annoying 300 thing won’t come into play too much.

The issue of the superheroes seeming too young doesn’t bother me as much, if it in fact turns out to be true.

I actually just finished re-reading Watchmen. It was not gratuitously violent, but when people got beaten, it hurt.

Interestingly I was reading over at Rope of Silicon an interview with the guy who plays Comedian and it sounds like they left a lot of the nastiness in. I don’t now how graphic it will be, but the actor was talking about how difficult it was for him to film a couple of scenes including the one in the Vietnamese bar with the pregnant woman and also the scene with Sally Jupiter.

I guess if you’re gonna have an R rating, it might as well be a hard R.

In the film genre of comic books, yes, but I agree that it’s stupid. In the print genre of comic books, you can find the blood and violence minus any censorship without looking too hard. Course, that’s a relatively new thing in comic books (within the last 15 years) but it’s there all the same.

But I get your point.

Again, I’m not asking for a 2 hour bloodletting, just a little bit of damage in a couple of scenes near the beginning, then imply the rest.

Yes, I realize the strictures of the genre don’t allow for that, but that’s one reason I’m done with the genre altogether for a while.

I thought Hannibal Lecter was hilarious, but I wouldn’t want the guy free walking the streets nor would I want to follow in his footsteps.

Also, it’s possible that much of the laughter directed towards the Joker and his ‘antics’ is of the nervous sort: people are so horrified that they’re not sure how to respond, and they laugh to cover up their bewilderment.

Funny that you mention the pool cue scene, Joel. It did seem somewhat awkward to me as well. Frightening, to be sure, but just a little out of sync. But at the same time, I liked that Nolan showed the Joker controlling people without actually engaging directly with them.

Saw it last night for the second time but my first in IMAX. I don’t think the IMAX presentation is a necessity for enjoying the movie, but it definitely is a different experience from watching it in a standard theater, even a massive standard theater. The sound system and the propulsive score are even more over-powering in IMAX, making the character moments more enveloping on such a large canvas.

I agree, Evan, that the score is really quite brilliant. It combines elements of horror films (Johnny Greenwood’s TWBB score, which evokes The Shining and 2001, definitely comes to mind) and more elemental aspects of a good action movie score but holds back the big emotional reveals for very specific scenes. The score actually holds Nolan’s movie together. I hadn’t noticed this until my second viewing. Many criticisms have been leveled at TDK that it’s choppy and narratively inconsistent, and they’re right if you can ignore the score. Otherwise, the score keeps the flow of Nolan’s direction working like gangbusters.

As for the Joker, he’s definitely the star of the film and the most charismatic character in the story but as Evan so clearly states, he’s terrifying and unsympathetic. He has the movie’s best scenes and he gets most of the big laughs, but this is just the outward projection of the Joker. As the film settles into its third act, the Joker’s sadism and complete hatred of humanity are very evident. I think Nolan is walking a fine line here, but it’s clear he doesn’t intend the Joker to be any sort of hero or even a likable villain.

Anyone that identifies too closely/easily/willingly with the Joker is either too shallow or too simple-minded to grasp the film’s bigger opinion of him. As I suspected, the Joker is heavily influenced by McDowell’s Alex in Clockwork Orange (Nolan has discussed this in interviews). While there will be those that will see the Joker or Alex as heroes, it’s clearly evident that neither Nolan nor Kubrick intended this. They are illuminating this kind of evil for what it is and allowing the audience the room to judge without exploiting or moralizing the character. Oliver Stone is guilty of making his serial killers into heroic figures in Natural Born Killers, but I don’t think Nolan is.

I can also see now why so many people here in the comments have taken issue with Maggie Gyllenhaal’s acting. She’s inconsistent in the role, although I think her good scenes (also the most important scenes for her character) are much better than her bad scenes. Her moments with Dent are her best work in the film and those scenes all work well for me. She has no chemistry at all with Bale and that shows on-screen. She also doesn’t play well off Ledger in their one scene together. Rachel’s repugnance for the Joker comes across as Gyllenhaal being out of the moment. I imagine it was an incredibly difficult, physical scene for her.

***MINOR SPOILERS*** Finally, I’d agree that Nolan’s PG13 violence does hamper one scene in the film: the Joker being deliver “dead” to his enemies. He kills the black mob boss off camera (and it’s not even really suggested HOW he kills him), then invites the newly jobless henchman to apparently kill each other with the last man standing getting a role in the Joker’s growing organization. This scene isn’t really important to the film and Nolan seems to be less than interested in it. It’s the one scene that I think is poorly executed and written and the one I’d agree is weakened by the bloodless PG-13 rating. ***END SPOILER***

Otherwise, I think Nolan does a lot with a PG-13 and makes the absolute most of it. Again, I think this is one of the most violent, most horrifying, darkest Summer movies I’ve ever seen and I think an R-rating would have hindered it more than helped. As Evan said, more blood or gore would have only made the movie seem more sadistic.

But here I am now, just a bit late to the party.

I’m glad you took time out to praise the score, which is just brilliant. I listened to it incessantly while I was writing, and it kept firing me up and made me want to go see the film a 3rd time. It is guttural and electronic, and your comparison to Daniel Plainview working in a mineshaft is spot on. In other places the score is epic, moving, and gut wrenching.

I will disagree with you on Batman’s growl, which I know has drawn criticism from many corners. At first it bothered me, but the more I dwelt on it, the more it made perfect sense. As Batman becomes lost in the theatrics of alter-ego, it stands to reason that he is going to exaggerate those theatrics. He’s all about the grand entrances and the god-like gadgets. He’s also all about the guttural, almost inhuman gravely voice. The growl also serves to distance Bruce Wayne from Batman in the film, which I think is a theme Nolan was working at very precisely. The Joker has essentially lost himself in the theatrics – he’s no longer a person, he’s just a persona. That is what Batman is in danger of becoming, simply a persona, and you can see Bruce Wayne and Batman beginning to fracture apart in this film. Thinking back on it, they feel like two separate characters. In fact, you only ever seen Wayne wearing the suit once (in that first image you posted at the top of your review). The growl accentuates that division of minds. Just like Javier Bardem’s haircut in No Country was designed to evoke feelings of alienation in the audience, to make sure that they did not sympathize with him in the slightest, Batman’s growl is designed to split Bruce Wayne and Batman apart in the audience’s mind.

I’m not actually sure how I feel on the violence issue. I agree with you that the cutaways, just before the worst of the violence takes place, feel cheap, and I hate the fact that this film is being blithely marketed to the under 13 set, who really have no business watching it. But I’m not sure it would have been better to have been more bloody. Do you watch Dexter at all? (and I apologize if any of this has been brought up in the comments…I couldn’t make it through all of them) The film is dark, sadistic, and thoroughly unsettling, but it is not gory or bloody at all. 10 minutes of your standard CSI episode is more graphic than an entire season of Dexter (at least violence wise). That is a calculated decision, however, since the premise behind the show is so disturbing that any displays of graphic violence would push us over the edge. It’s bad enough that the hero is a serial killer (even if he is just knocking off the bad guys) – it wouldn’t be palatable if we actually had to watch him enact his kills.

I think something similar might be going on here. The Joker is so disturbing, so unsettling, that if we had been treated to more graphic displays of violence, its possible we would not have been able to take it. People can watch uber-graphic violence in movies like Saw because it’s all neutered, empty, meaningless, just like pornography. The violence isn’t really real. But here? The joker is terrifying. The threat he poses is ever present. It’s almost too much to take. If I had to watch him actually carve someone up, it might have pushed things too far. The film is thrilling, scary, and thought provoking, but it isn’t sadistic. It’s a film about a sadist, but it isn’t a sadistic film. If we had been given R levels of violence, that might not have been the case.

However, I’d be willing to bet that there is an unrated version that will hit DVD around Christmas time with all of those scenes intact. I guess we can make up our minds for sure then.

I won’t try to dissuade you, Craig, since there’s a good chance you find Joker likable for many of the same reasons you find me likable.

Joker, likable? hmm, not feelin’ it; fuckable, maybe.

[This is just a place-holder comment. Save me this seat. I'll be back to try to be more serious in a couple of hours.]

As it stands, Joker is a likeable character and that’s just wrong.

I think that probably makes no sense. I’ll shut up now.

Nevertheless, I can see this being seen as a problem, as it’s been pointed out by a number of people.

Excellent, Sartre, that coveted back row is ideal for that auditorium. Otherwise, I would feel too close!

Almost forgot. We were in the back row, a little further to the left than your near ideal seats.

It’s terrific that you saw it in IMAX in San Francisco. I sat in the back row, just to the left of that gap for a wheelchair. How about you? :)