Perhaps it’s fitting that Watchmen seems to be hanging one second before midnight in terms of its reviews.
Rotten Tomatoes has given the film a 63% — just three percent above a rotten mark — while giving it a pretty good sum-up of all the critic’s thoughts:
Consensus: Gritty and visually striking, Watchmen is a faithful adaptation of Alan Moore’s graphic novel, but its complex narrative structure may make it difficult for it to appeal to viewers not already familiar with the source material.
But already I can tell this is going to be a movie that is debated upon for the days and weeks to come. Perhaps surprisingly is the reviews of Ebert and Roeper. Ebert, for those who don’t remember, wrote a scathing article on fanboy culture (rightly or wrongly, you decide) during his review of Fanboys. But with Watchmen…
…He gave the movie four stars.
After the revelation of “The Dark Knight,” here is “Watchmen,” another bold exercise in the liberation of the superhero movie. It’s a compelling visceral film — sound, images and characters combined into a decidedly odd visual experience that evokes the feel of a graphic novel. It seems charged from within by its power as a fable; we sense it’s not interested in a plot so much as with the dilemma of functioning in a world losing hope.
Yet Ebert’s partner in crime, Richard Roeper, only gave the film 2.5 stars. Some highlights:
In a film I loved called “The Lookout,” Matthew Goode gave one of the most underrated performances in recent years. Please rent it. Here, as Ozymandias, who is supposed to be so smart and so fast and so dangerous, Goode comes across like the backup singer in a boy band. He’s all foppish fopphishness, and he seems about as lethal as a fashion designer bitching out a model backstage.
And then there’s Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre. I’m sure Ms. Akerman is a nice young lady, but having seen her in “27 Dresses,” ”The Heartbreak Kid” and here, I’m not so sure acting is the career for her. Her delivery is so flat that it would compel an acting teacher at a community college to say, “Have you thought about becoming a nurse?” Whether she’s learning a shocking secret, fighting with Dr. Manhattan or doing it with the Nite Owl, she sounds as if she’s reciting lines she just memorized. It’s painful to watch.
Ouch. What say you, Rama readers? My local cineplex did not have a midnight show, and I want to hear what you thought about this movie!
March 6th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Personally, I really enjoyed it, but it is a divisive movie. I went to see it with 3 other friends, 2 of us liked it and 2 didn’t. But in saying that I enjoyed it that doesn’t absolve it of its faults, which I don’t know I could go into without spoiling the movie. Roeper is definitely right that Malin Ackerman was just terrible; she ruined every scene she was in.
March 6th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
It was largely faithful to the comic (as I remember reading it) so it made a great companion piece. It really brought the action scenes to life. But I did find myself wondering how accessible it would be to someone who had not read the book. I think you really need to have to read comic to appreciate the movie.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Who cares about what these snotty critics have to say?
I personally loved the movie. It is as close to a transfer to film as it can get from Alan Moore’s Watchmen and it is simply amazing. I’m watching it for the second time tomorrow on IMAX!
March 6th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Roeper is right now about Ackerman. She really took me out of the movie a number of times with her wooden acting.
March 7th, 2009 at 1:39 am
I really liked the movie, and Ackerman’s acting wasn’t as terrible as the people here would like you to believe. Her character had a distant feel, but that might be the character(Never read the comic.) Not to mention she’s as beautiful as it gets. The story line was pretty complex, it had the lesser evil for greater good type of story. But, if you’re wanting to see a traditional superhero action flick. Don’t bother.
March 7th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
I never read the book so I can give you a pretty objective view of what people like me think of the movie. I’m a fan of the Marvel flicks like Spider-Man and the X-men which can be often called too “clean” or morally black and white by some. This movie was so terrible compared to them that I question why I stayed in the theater as long as I did.
No, I didn’t bother to watch the whole thing and walked out of the theater rather than expose myself to the flat and unlikeable characters exposing themselves over and over in front of me. The story didn’t exist so I figure I wasn’t missing much. By the time the Owl guy put on his costume I thought maybe the movie was going to start. I was wrong and I had sat there for what felt like 2 hours already. (spoiler ahead maybe???) I’m guessing the Ozymandias character was behind it all because they kept putting purple symbols of his company all over the movie as the only clue as to where they were going. About the most unimaginative and unlikeable character I’ve ever seen portrayed on film next to Jar Jar Binks.
Most of the movie was just a chance to show as much unbeliveable blood and gore and morrally reprehensable acts as possible in order to appease those who thrive off of snuff films and kiddy porn. I just felt this appealed to a different audience than.. oh.. 98% of the human race.
I prefer super hero movies with.. wait for it… HEROES! I’ll give this an F+ but only because Rorshak actually seemed the closest to an actual hero of all the characters in this movie. He at least made me smile a couple times. The rest of the film was as limp as the many clear views blue guy’s dangling uh.. participle.
March 7th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
anyone complaining that Malin Ackerman ruined the movie is just jealous that THEY didn’t get to have their way with her inside Archie. She’s not going to win an Oscar, but she was passable. I guess some people just get more out of tearing things down than in trying to actually enjoy the movie.
March 7th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Ebert’s likes sci-fi and fantasy. He is a major champion of animation. He criticizes the Lord of the Rings films for missing the point of the books in the roles hobbits play (as opposed to humans). And was a fanboy as a teen. I think at some level, though, he’s ashamed of that. And has decided that there are better things to obsess over. Though why obsessing over Star Wars is bad and obsessing over more serious cinema is okay is beyond me.
But Ebert is one of the better critics, somewhat more accepting of directors who break the mold, and of films that work within their goals. He is not one to dismiss a film because it’s based on a comic. And he does genuinely seem to like heroes when done right.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:20 am
I really enjoyed it as did my wife. I thought the soundtrack was brilliant as well. A great way to spend my afternoon.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“he’s not going to win an Oscar, but she was passable.”
The characters of Watchmen deserve more than just ‘passable’ acting performances.
March 8th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
@Maxwell’s Hammer: I wanted to like Ackerman and as I said, I did enjoy the movie as a whole, but her acting was just totally unconvincing. A good actor disappears into a role and pulls you in so deeply that you forget you’re even watching a movie. But in Ackerman’s scenes she was always so flat and unconvincing that it really pulled me out of the movie. Jackie Earle Haley, on the other hand, was simply phenomenal.
March 8th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I’m embarassed to admit I’ve never read a graphic novel, let alone even heard of the Watchmen. And for the first hour or so I was completely confused and frustrated, feeling like I wasted my eight bucks. I actually got up at one point to leave the theatre to go home and catch up on Season Six of Smallville (which I mention only to show where my head is at). My superhero plot expectations are traditional Hollywood, ie Spiderman, Superman, Hulk, etc. So I felt lost. But at some point something clicked for me and I found myself swept up into the watchmen world. The movie was breathtaking, romantic, violent, wistful and visually spectacular. I loved this movie.
March 8th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
I dug it. Thought it was a great adaptation. I thought there was one or two hic ups in the sound track.
The group of four I went with never read the novel and were completely non-comic indoctrinated. They were all able to follow it and enjoyed it very much. They all agree the Lynx was out of place though.
After 8-10 years of super-hero-origin-movies most people are pretty familiar with the tenets of the genre.
March 8th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
just terrible. I like to actually be entertained by movies in some way shape or form. Nothing about that movie was remotely worth watching.
I’ve read comics my whole life and really loved TDK, Sin City and such. But if you thought Batman was somber and pretentious dont go see this black hole of a movie.
The movie was 2hrs and 40mins of torture
March 9th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Prior to seeing the movie at 7 pm today, I thought it looked like a cool superhero movie. I had never read the comic but I liked Alan Moore so I thought, what the hell? I and my friend Matt went to go see it and we couldn’t stop squealing. And neither of us knew a whole lot about Watchmen beforehand. Possible a curse but mostly a blessing.
@Aaron:
You obviously missed the point of the entire film and you sound like a jackass which means that it’s not even worth it to argue with you.
I agree that Ackerman really could have emoted a lot more than she did but I think the other characters helped make up for it. And I only say that because I really didn’t notice how flat she was until now when I’m thinking back on it and reading what some other people think.
I loved how Dr. Manhattan was butt naked for almost the entire movie except for the 2 or 3 times he had on a thong or wore a suit. I think it helped highlight how different he felt from everyone and how different he actually was from everyone. It was a treat for women and some guys AND it worked with his character as another trait. The dude playing Ozymandias was purported to being a tad flat as well. I think this was in keeping with his detached, sociopathic nature and I don’t think it was an eyesore at all. Rorschach was THE SHIT. No one questions that. The acting was spot on with no slip-ups and no breaches of character.
I read from another review that they thought Dr. Manhattan’s voice might have been deeper. I think that maybe his voice was almost an attempt to retain some hold on his former self. As Ozymandias said, he hadn’t lost his human emotions – just the rest of his human-ness. (He certainly kept his penis.)
There’s SO much that you could say about it that most have said by now. While they changed some things, it doesn’t affect the overall movie. None of the scenes fall down with Ackerman and Ozymandias and Dr. Mahattan are superb.
One of the bigger ironies that I *adored* was how Rorschach was completely homicidal and willing to do anything to get results and he’s the moral compass of the entire team. Fucking awesome.
My friend says that it makes you think and I have to emphatically agree. Like The Dark Knight, it does lend itself to some Epileptic Trees (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EpilepticTrees) and some Wild Mass Guessing (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WildMassGuessing) but that just makes it a helluva lot more fun.
November 17th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
I was studying something else about this on another blog. Interesting. Your perspective on it is novel. – I tended to place my wife under a pedestal. – Woody Allen Born 1935 Land Financing and What Mortgage