He said it, not me.
In an interview with the LA Times, Watchmen director Zack Snyder said:
“We’re killing the comic-book movie, we’re ending it… this movie is the last comic-book movie, for good or bad.”
While I know he was saying it in jest, the latest numbers from Rotten Tomatoes aren’t looking too good. While we reported earlier in the week of an 81% Freshness rating, that percentage has dropped to 68%. While that’s only a 13% drop, it means the film is perilously close to a Rotten rating…
The thing that really is telling about this is the fact that the naysayers all seem to come from established outlets (the AP, the Village Voice, and New York Magazine being a few), whereas the positive comments are largely coming from independent web sites like JoBlo and CHUD (with some support from outlets like Empire and Entertainment Weekly). Some highlights:
The Associated Press: Yes, I’ve read Watchmen… It moved me, too. And still — or, rather, because of that — I found director Snyder’s adaptation hugely disappointing, faithful as it is to the 1986 graphic novel.
New York Magazine: They’ve made the most reverent adaptation of a graphic novel ever. But this kind of reverence kills what it seeks to preserve. The movie is embalmed.
Arizona Republic: A (mostly) faithful re-creation of the comic. But it could have been so much more.
San Diego Union Tribune: Alan Moore was right in detaching himself from the project, maintaining his integrity.
At best, it’s looking like the consensus is that you really can be too faithful to a text. Is this a case of the true followers of our off-kilter medium knowing the truth, or is this fanboys padding a movie they feel validates the whole superhero movie genre?
March 4th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I call poppycock on this. Having seen the film last night, I can tell you that it’s a success.
I thought that WATCHMEN was…well, at this point exactly what I expected. It was good, it was ambitious, it was about as true to the comics as could be reasonably expected, with a look and casting that really evoked the look of Gibbons’ art and big chunks of dialog (as well as some of the most important camera angles) cribbed right from the source material. If it didn’t blow me away, I think it’s partly because I was fully prepared for it to. The changes they made to the end of the film in order to excise the squid and streamline some of the story was not an inelegant solution, and I think that it will draw the same kind of reaction that the “Warner Brothers ending” to V FOR VENDETTA did–the Moore faithful will be mortified, the newbies will think the movie’s ending makes more sense than the book’s and most of us in the middle will say, “It could have been tweaked, but after 25 years and getting a good movie, I’m not going to complain.” It’s certainly not THE SPIRIT, which was…well, despiriting.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
The Joblo review I read panned it!
http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=25304
“God, this makes me sad to say, but if you’ve seen the trailer though, you’ve seen most of the good parts already.”
March 4th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
V for Vendetta was a failure on every conceivable level, so if you’re using that as a positive comparison for Watchmen, then this movie is doomed.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
It’s way too early to call this a definite great movie or a definite crap movie. It seems, at this early stage, however, that die-hard nerds are for it and established media sources aren’t terribly thrilled.
Just FYI: another great site for media reviews is Metacritic which gives you a nice snapshot of critical reception with relevant quotations highlighted.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Oops… I forgot to close the link. Someone can fix that. Mea culpa.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I find it interesting that most of the negative or mediocre reviews seem to be comparing the movie to the book.
Then again, reviews don’t mean much if the movie does box office.
Geeks digging it is a good sign. Geeks are more critical than your standard ticket buyer.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
“I find it interesting that most of the negative or mediocre reviews seem to be comparing the movie to the book.”
This has always been a pet peeve of mine. When you’re watching a movie (or reviewing it) that’s based on another format (novel, play) you NEED to divorce your opinion from that original material. Watch (or most importantly) judge it as a motion picture FIRST. Does it do it’s job as a movie. Only after discussing it’s merits as a film should you get into comparing it to the original material.
It needs to work as a movie, first and foremost. If you expect people or need the audience to have read the book (or seen the play) to “get it” or enjoy/understand the story, you’re not doing your job as a movie maker.
Well, that’s my opinion anyway.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
“Geeks digging it is a good sign. Geeks are more critical than your standard ticket buyer.”
It’s funny you mention that, because while I think often times they CAN be the most critical, sometimes they can also be the easiest audience. Often times we’ll like something because we WANT to like it, as I think will be the case for Watchmen. I think it’s pretty damning that more established and so-called “respected” reviews are less than thrilled with it. Just because something is faithful to its source material doesn’t mean it’s a solid movie. Of course, many top critics really warmed to Superman Returns and it was a complete train wreck.
All that said, while I am not excited about the movie, I am interested in it and deep down and I really do hope I enjoy it, but I am skeptical.
“It needs to work as a movie, first and foremost. If you expect people or need the audience to have read the book (or seen the play) to “get it” or enjoy/understand the story, you’re not doing your job as a movie maker.”
You are dead-on. I remember after I made the mistake of watching the atrocious Silent Hill movie, fans of the movie told me (on hearing my thoughts of the movie), “Well, you didn’t play the game.” My response, “If you have to play a game to enjoy the movie, then the movie failed.” One of the most recurring themes I’ve seen in the positive Watchmen reviews is that, yeah, the narrative is weak, but boy does the movie look good! In a movie like Watchmen, isn’t the narrative the most important part? Just as I said to the defensive Silent Hill fans, if someone has to read the comic book to enjoy the Watchmen movie, then the movie failed.
March 4th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
What I’m getting from the reviewers comparing it to the book is that the fidelity to the book drags it down on screen. To me, that’s a valid criticism.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Batman & Robin, LXG, Catwoman and Elektra would have been responcible for killing the comic book movie. If Watchmen is as good as some people I know of say, instead of some hack from a probably doomed local rag, then this will only make comic book movies thrive even more.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Dave, being a fan of “V” (both the book and the movie) please qualitfy your statement above. Explain what you mean and why when you say it’s a “failure at every conceivable level.”
There are certainly differences between the movie and the book, but I do think that that the movie’s very much in the same spirit as the book and that it’s pretty faithful for much of the film. Given the themes and content of the film, along with the violence (and R rating), I think it did reasonably well at the box office. Not a blockbuster, but it did pretty solid business for a dystopian, politically-charged film set in the UK that requires the viewer to think a bit harder than your typical popcorn fare. I loved it, and I’m sorry you didn’t, but there’s room enough for both the movie and the book. Hell, I know a lot of people who bought the book *after* seeing the movie.
Anyhow, I am looking forward to the Watchmen movie. I haven’t gotten tickets yet, so I might not get in to see it this weekend, but I certainly will by the second weekend. I’m just re-reading the book now, having not read it in several years, but I think I can divorce myself from the book while watching the film. We’ll see.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Alexa, that’ll be interesting if adherence to the book actually drags the movie down a bit. All that most people on geek sites like this one (or AICN, for example), wanted was for the movie to be faithful to the book. If that ends up being the main criticism of the movie, after all of Snyder’s attempts to placate the fanboy (& girl) crowd, it’ll be irony indeed.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Just my own take:
As good of a job as Snyder can do or will do (who knows at this point), I would’ve been floored if this movie got Rotten Tomatoes numbers resembling IRON MAN or THE DARK KNIGHT. At its best, I just don’t think it’s going to touch that nerve those 2008 films did, whether you know the original material or not.
That being said, if the investment bank I work at (gotta pay the bills, right?) is any indication, buzz among the uneducated is pretty good! I got colleagues completely unfamiliar with WATCHMEN as a book or anything that are damn eager to check it out. Whether it’ll ultimately work for them remains to be seen. I hope to God it works as a solid film on its on merits.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
I think it might do BETTER than some think amongst people who haven’t read it… Not as much baggage as too many fans/Moore disciples seem to be carrying around.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Shaun, the problem is that too many people conflate fidelity to the source material with a good adaptation. A good example, of course, is the Lord of the Rings films. Those were far from slavishly faithful, but for the most part, they knew what to keep, what to throw out, what to change, etc. They were extraordinary adaptations that satisfied even the most hardcore Tolkien fans. What we’re looking at here is a bunch of critics saying, “Look, that works on the page, but you’re working on the screen.”
March 4th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Shaun, I had a lengthy response to you written up, but the site lost it and I’m not writing it again.
Fundamentally, V for Vendetta showed a complete misunderstanding of the source material, and by reducing the comic’s conflict between anarchy and fascism where neither side is presented as right into a simplistic superhero story where a figure representing modern American liberalism (which is clearly in the right) battles a government representing modern American neoconservatism (which is clearly evil, also Bush did 9/11,) and claiming V represents the everyman instead of being an inhuman monster indicates a failure to even slightly comprehend what Moore was saying with V for Vendetta.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Also, I find it ironic that Snyder say that Watchmen is “the last comic book movie” while he’s already planning a sequel to 300 based on a comic that Frank Miller is writing expressly for the purpose of being adapted into a movie.
Okay, “ironic” isn’t the right word. “Moronic” is closer to what I actually meant.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Speaking of reviews, check out this thread, Who’s Watching the “Watchmen” Reviewers?:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/03/02/whos-watching-the-watchmen-reviewers/
March 4th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
“Depictions of violence gives me a raging boner” -John Nolte.
Bighollywood are the dumbest motherfuckers on the internet. Nothing more should ever be said about them.
March 5th, 2009 at 10:04 am
I saw it on Tuesday. Overall, I would give it a B. I will agree that at parts the film is definitely to loyal to the source material. The movie is just about perfect up until the start of the Blake funeral sequence, where it really loses narrative momentum. In a comic, where each reader can follow the story at their own pace, it is fine to alternate between moving the plot forward and filling out the backstory. In a movie long origin sequences kill the progress of the plot. In this sense the film could probably do with being a bit shorter.
I will say that most of the individual scenes work very well, and most of the actors do a great job. Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach is just amazing. If the same crew did a miniseries it would probably have been fantastic. That way you could follow the structure of the comic and get away with it.
March 5th, 2009 at 11:27 am
“Shaun, the problem is that too many people conflate fidelity to the source material with a good adaptation. A good example, of course, is the Lord of the Rings films. Those were far from slavishly faithful, but for the most part, they knew what to keep, what to throw out, what to change, etc. They were extraordinary adaptations that satisfied even the most hardcore Tolkien fans. What we’re looking at here is a bunch of critics saying, “Look, that works on the page, but you’re working on the screen.””
Excellent point, and to kind of juxtapose it look at the first Harry Potter movie. It is one of the most faithful adaptations from book to screen, but the movie itself is lacking; it has no soul. To steal a line from one of the Watchmen critics, it’s “cinematic taxidermy” and I am afraid Watchmen could have the same problem. Being true to the source material can only take you so far.
However, after reading Roger Ebert’s review, I am a lot more optimistic about Watchmen and may even get around to watching it in the theater.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Alright Dave, I’m late in getting back to this discussion but I see where you’re coming from in your argument. You basically stated what I think Moore himself did… Something about “If they wanted to make a film about Bush’s America why didn’t they make their own movie?” or words to that effect anyhow.
Personally, I don’t feel the film makes it that simplistic that V is the upstanding hero (my apologies if I, however, am oversimplifying what you’re arguing)… Is he a hero, a revolutionary, a terrorist or a bit of all three? Were his methods the right way? I don’t know that the film purports to answer those questions definitively. I never felt that the movie V was the upstanding hero that, say, Superman is made out to be. I don’t think all of V’s actions are to be admired, regardless of his intentions.
The movie definitely casts the government to be evil, and considering how much I hated what Bush and his people did over the past eight years I had no problem with that. I’d argue that the commentary the Wachowskis were going for wasn’t all that different from what Moore was saying about Thatcher’s England (Moore was no fan of hers). They (Bush and Thatcher, that is) wer cut of the same cloth, bascially, but if anything Thatcher comes of as fairly benign today compared to the Bush Administration. Making “V” a relevant movie today it needed to some updating, and I felt the movie was successful in taking an already great story and updating it in parts that would reflect the (then) current world situation. Specifcally, seen from an veiled American view… But hey, it’s not like the Brits were all that happy with Tony Blair falling in lockstep with Bush.
Anyhow, I respect and appreciate where you’re coming from. They are two different animals in some respects, but I don’t think they’re as far off as you might think. Mostly, I see the film as vehicle to get people thinking, and taking a greater awareness of and taking action about the injustices we were facing just a short while ago. I don’t think the idea was to call for violent revolution in the streets, but just to motivate people to unite and make a stand of their own. In one sense, it could be argued that it finally happened with Obama’s election. A simplistic example, I grant you, but hopefully you see what I mean.
I just take the book and the film as separate entities, cousins perhaps. Related, but not necessarily the same. Both will give you much to think about and talk about, more than your average comic book or movie will at least. 73% for “V” on Rotten Tomatoes, so I’d say the film did alright for itself. Still a very well-made, well-acted, provocative film.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Alexa, LOTR is a great example of what we were talking about. I’ve talked to a few people who feel like Peter Jackson “butchered” the stories, but I certainly don’t. You couldn’t film it all and still make it accessible.
I questioned a few of his changes, but for the most part I thought he was spot-on in what he did. Some will disagree vehemently, but I was so happy that Jackson cut Tom Bombadil out… I understand what he represents in Tolkien’s world, but he doesn’t move the plot along at all and it would’ve ground the movie to a halt. Smart move, losing all that. I love all three of those films, and I never get sick of them.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
As for what Joshua said about Harry Potter, that’s a bit more of a mixed bag. I saw the first HP movie before I ever read the books, and I loved it the first time I saw it. It definitely got me interested in reading the HP series, and I appreciated how faithful it was. I didn’t have to ask people a lot of questions about what I saw. It is pretty much “by-the-numbers” though, and the films got more stylish over time.
Funnily enough, the second HP movie is just as faithful as the first but I like the second movie better than the second book. Not sure why. The third movie (Prisoner of Azkaban) was a clear step forward, even though it cut out of important, relevant material. In many ways, it’s still the best of the HP films (so far).
I mostly like the fourth film (Goblet of Fire), but felt they cut a few too many corners, and I REALLY disliked the fifth (Order of the Phoenix). The longest book (and one my faves in the series) became the shortest film and too many great moments were either cut or changed too much for their own good. Mostly for the sake of brevity, IMO.
I’m a little worried about the upcoming sixth movie (Half Blood Prince), after hearing about cuts/changes at a test screening last year, but I expect them to really knock it out of the park in the two-part seventh film. There will be no excuse for them not to, given the time they’ll have to work with.
At the very least, I hope they’ll give Snape more to do, considering his extreme importance in the sixth and seventh books. They also need to bring Dobby back as well, in the seventh, and really should’ve brought him back in the last film.