It was good , but got muddled when Rorschach went to prison. There is alot during that part of the story which got breezed over, most notably his conversations with the prison psychologist.I think it was good in the end, and the directors cut should improve the problems it had. The opening credits rocked.
halfjack said:
I don't think it's fair to say that someone who views the world differently is a sociopath, or a monster. he knew right from wrong. it's just a different definition. surrendering yourself to ethics like that, there is no return. If he ever had a choice, he made it. no compromise, not even in the face of the apocalypse. it's a shame that kind of belief is looked down upon in this day and age.
I'm absolutely flabbergasted anyone who read the damn comic would see Rorschach as a hero of any kind. He murdered people. He tortured innocent people. He was about on the level of Mussolini in terms of politics. He called the Comedian's attempt at rape a "moral lapse of a great man." He hated gays. Let's just set aside the decision at the end, this is not a hero. This is a portrait of a killer in a mask. His principles, strong though they may be, are completely fucked.
But hey, let's take the end into account. Why, exactly, is it a shame that that kind of belief is looked down upon these days? You think the world needs more people willing to cause the deaths of everyone in the world so long as their moral code and sense of "justice" is upheld? And we should look up to those people? Really?
Moore did a great job of making a fascist likable anti-hero, which makes sense in an alternate reality story line.
Anti-hero I can accept, and I get that Moore wanted him to give you pause and make the character compelling, but if we're actually defending him or anything he did, I'm really lost. He wasn't a good person, he never did one good thing in the entire book, he was never shown trying to do anything good (though it is implied he once did), and he hated the entire human race. I get that the end is a moral question, but even if you think he's on the right side of it, even if you like him as a character, I can't fathom seeing him as anything other than a homocidal maniac.
Scryer said:
Rorschach was really messed up, but I gotta say I would feel much, much safer in a city where he was dealing with crime.
How safe would you feel if you were gay?
Have you read the books or seen the movie? His politics aside, his only driving force was catching/stopping criminals. There is nothing to lead the reader/viewer to believe that he was a violent toward gay people. Also the only person he killed in the book that wasn't in self defense was a child rapist/murderer, so I don't think the term "homicidal maniac" is very accurate either (a term used by a different person in this thread). There's a reason this "comic" was on the list of 100 best novels of the 20th century, the characters are insanely complex and none of them are truly good or evil in a classic superhero way.
Scryer said:
Rorschach was really messed up, but I gotta say I would feel much, much safer in a city where he was dealing with crime.
How safe would you feel if you were gay?
Have you read the books or seen the movie? His politics aside, his only driving force was catching/stopping criminals. There is nothing to lead the reader/viewer to believe that he was a violent toward gay people. Also the only person he killed in the book that wasn't in self defense was a child rapist/murderer, so I don't think the term "homicidal maniac" is very accurate either (a term used by a different person in this thread). There's a reason this "comic" was on the list of 100 best novels of the 20th century, the characters are insanely complex and none of them are truly good or evil in a classic superhero way.
Yes, I've read it and watched it and I realize Rorschach is a complex dude, not necessarily evil or a wanton murderer, but that doesn't mean I'd be comfortable with his type of vigilante justice in real life.
AaronB said:
Have you read the books or seen the movie? His politics aside, his only driving force was catching/stopping criminals. There is nothing to lead the reader/viewer to believe that he was a violent toward gay people. Also the only person he killed in the book that wasn't in self defense was a child rapist/murderer, so I don't think the term "homicidal maniac" is very accurate either (a term used by a different person in this thread). There's a reason this "comic" was on the list of 100 best novels of the 20th century, the characters are insanely complex and none of them are truly good or evil in a classic superhero way.
His whole MO was that he killed people. Remember when Silk Specter II and Nite Owl discuss the guy who dressed up and begged people to arrest him, who then died because he pulled it on Rorschach and Rorschach dropped him down an elevator shaft? He hadn't actually broken any laws. And the significance of the murderer/rapist you mentioned was that that was the breaking point for Rorschach, and that after that he started killing the criminals he chased. The shades of grey in the comic (or in the movie, which I've now seen) revolve around the fact that there really isn't any significant difference between Rorschach, the Comedian and the criminals they chase. There are plenty of people, in real life, who fit the description of someone who compulsively kills people who violate their personal moral code following an a fucked up child and some incredible trauma. These people are serial killers. The fact that Rorschach's moral code is closer to society's than the average serial killer doesn't make him any more acceptable.
AaronB said:
Have you read the books or seen the movie? His politics aside, his only driving force was catching/stopping criminals. There is nothing to lead the reader/viewer to believe that he was a violent toward gay people. Also the only person he killed in the book that wasn't in self defense was a child rapist/murderer, so I don't think the term "homicidal maniac" is very accurate either (a term used by a different person in this thread). There's a reason this "comic" was on the list of 100 best novels of the 20th century, the characters are insanely complex and none of them are truly good or evil in a classic superhero way.
His whole MO was that he killed people. Remember when Silk Specter II and Nite Owl discuss the guy who dressed up and begged people to arrest him, who then died because he pulled it on Rorschach and Rorschach dropped him down an elevator shaft? He hadn't actually broken any laws. And the significance of the murderer/rapist you mentioned was that that was the breaking point for Rorschach, and that after that he started killing the criminals he chased. The shades of grey in the comic (or in the movie, which I've now seen) revolve around the fact that there really isn't any significant difference between Rorschach, the Comedian and the criminals they chase. There are plenty of people, in real life, who fit the description of someone who compulsively kills people who violate their personal moral code following an a fucked up child and some incredible trauma. These people are serial killers. The fact that Rorschach's moral code is closer to society's than the average serial killer doesn't make him any more acceptable.
For some reason I don't think Rorschach went on a killing spree after his "breaking point" I thought that was the night that Walter didn't exist anymore, where he became Rorschach by night and crazy guy with a sign by day. I guess my only point of contention is this, while recognizing that Rorschach is severely flawed I don't think he needs to be written off as pure evil.
tells Manhattan to kill him. He knows that Ozymandias is right but he can't live with it. He will not allow himself to become the bad guy by living with the knowledge of what has happend. He refuses to comprimise right up until the bitter end. He is different. But the other heroes, well by going along with Ozymandias, they become the bad guys themselves in a way and accept it.
My only complaint with this movie was that it eliminated an important exchange between Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan that was in the book. At the end, where Ozymandias asks if he's done right the thing, "In the end." and is told "There is no end."
It makes Ozymandias more than a simple villain, and, even more importantly, neuters the argument that the end justifies the means. There is no end, and what is done for short term goals continues to unfold over time into ways even the smartest man can't predict.
Other than that I loved it. I give it two thumbs up. It was much better than Cats. I will go see this movie again and again.
CheshireCat
Los Angeles, CA
January 2004
MAR 17, 2009 01:43 AM