"WATCHMEN" COUNTDOWN
You know you're going to go see it, but should you walk in with your expectations at towering Dr. Manhattan heights or down at a more modest Mothman level? It depends on whom you ask...and whom you read. Here's a survey of what film critics, members of the fanboy press and some bold-name bloggers are saying about Zack Snyder's ambitious interpretation of comics masterpiece by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons.
(NOTE: I'm doing raw slabs of copy below. I didn't correct spellings or monkey around with the text. The only exception: I added some first names in brackets to make cast and character citations clearer and I put in dashes on some words that were too ripe for L.A. Times copy editors.)
Christy Lemire, Associated Press: Yes, I've read "Watchmen." I understand why it matters culturally, why it's considered revolutionary in its exploration of flawed superheroes, why it moved you. 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 graphic novel. That rigid reverence should please purists — tiny details from individual comic-book panels are recreated lovingly on the big screen — but it also contributes to the film's considerable bloat. At almost three hours, "Watchmen" tries to cram in nearly everything writer Alan Moore and illustrator Dave Gibbons originally depicted, but then the ending feels rushed.
Brad Meltzer, bestselling novelist: Saw "Watchmen" last night. You have to go see it and decide for yourself. You have to. Don't read reviews. Don't be influenced. Make your own decision (just like when the comic came out). But let me just say this -- seeing the film is like seeing, 20 years later, the girl/boy from junior high that you had your biggest crush on. It's thrilling. And gets your blood flying -- really flying. But what stands out most is what's different and imperfect and therefore (unfairly or fairly) outstandingly wrong. What they get perfect is so damn perfect (it's insane how perfect). What they get wrong feels like lemons on your papercuts. But go see. You'll know. READ THE REST
Ian Nathan, Empire: That Snyder has gotten a version to the screen at all is a triumph. He has found a way — although this is 160 minutes of a dense, geek-orientated blockbuster for grown-ups. Inevitably, but hardly catastrophically, it fails to truly capture the cascade of ideas and bracing cynicism of Moore’s writing. Yet there is a challenging, visually stunning and memorable movie here, moored halfway toward achieving the impossible. It will also inevitably be judged from two angles: what it means for those that have read the comic-book, and those who will enter the cinema unequipped, say, with the history of the Minutemen, predecessors of the Watchmen, or the nature of Bubastis, Ozymandias’ genetically mutated lynx. Snyder nearly manages a film for both, but errs to the former. While necessarily filleting down the vast story to something palatable for human bladders, he is slavish to the original text. In his desire to encompass the novel’s strands, storylines and their payoffs are short-changed, leaving the film emotionally subdued, more an intellectual mystery than natural thriller.
And there is no compromising for the junior dollar: arms are snapped, heads hatcheted, and Viet Cong splattered like flies by Dr. Manhattan, while Silk Spectre keeps her kinky boots on during mid-flight coitus. The entire atmosphere, dunking the cleaner lines of the novel into a pungently vivid, rain-sloshed superhero noir, lacquered in bloodstains and midnight shadows, is superbly realized, a true world-unto-itself far more stimulating than Iron Man’s Windowlened sparkle or even The Dark Knight’s shimmering, Michael Mann-ish nightscapes. READ THE REST
Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly: Feel free to nitpick what Snyder has left out of "Watchmen." It's hard not to be impressed by what he has wedged in. Yet even Watchmen fanatics may be doomed to a disappointment that results from trying to stay this faithful to a comic book. The opening-credit sequence has a marvelous audacity, as it packs in the story of how the Minutemen — masked crime fighters of the 1940s — gave rise to their more nihilistic counterparts in the '50s. (The sequence is punctuated with historical events such as the JFK assassination and set to the thrillingly recontextualized sounds of Bob Dylan's ''The Times They Are A-Changin'.'') But once the film proper begins, Snyder, who did such a terrific job of adapting the solemn Olympian war porn of "300," treats each image with the same stuffy hermetic reverence. He doesn't move the camera or let the scenes breathe. He crams the film with bits and pieces, trapping his actors like bugs wriggling in the frame. READ THE REST
Mike Ragogna, Huffington Post: From the moment we see The Comedian's blood streak across his '70s Happy Face button, we know that the movie version of "Watchmen" and its caretakers were going to be as respectful as possible to the vision of the original comic miniseries. Based on one of the most collected and memorable comic book runs in history, the movie "Watchmen" tries to be all things cosmic and ambiguously moral to all of us unactualized and imperfect people, and it succeeds on most fronts. But unlike the thought-provoking Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons and John Higgins 1986 creation that demanded one's imagination stretch beyond a page of panels, this thoroughly engaging incarnation of Warner's DC Comics property attempts to achieve that level of examination through a more stylized, literal approach. READ THE REST
George "El Guapo" Roush, Latino Review: "Watchmen" may be one of the most beautifully shot superhero movies, nay, beautifully shot movies period, I've ever seen. From the opening scene to the end credits, each scene looks as if it just jumped off the page of a comic book and landed in your lap. Everything from the lighting to the camera angles to the color palette is striking to behold. I was blown away by how beautiful this movie is. And while looks alone don't make a film great, they certainly don't hurt. The costumes, sets and CGI all blend seamlessly together to make "Watchmen" a sure Oscar contender for next year, at least in cinematography and costume design he academy likes to s---- on any movie superhero-related.The other thing that makes "Watchmen" an almost perfect film is the way the characters are portrayed on screen. Everyone in the movie has issues, secrets and pain they deal with daily. Character backgrounds are explained either through flashbacks or just from simple character interaction. Each person becomes more and more complex and draws you in to the story that much deeper. READ THE REST
One fan's view, left on the comments page here at Hero Complex: "Stunning, 'Watchmen Is a visceral assault on the in the senses. Go see it You'll like it." Another respondent was less inspired: "Worst movie ever." Fans couldn't even agree on what they saw on the screen. One Hero Complex reader wrote: "I came out astonished. The movie is a great adaptation of that novel staying as true to its roots as possible." Another moaned: "Why change the story from the book?"
There are quite a few predictions that the movie will drop off considerably after the opening-weekend surge by hard-core comics fans and the mainstream-media reviews (which were not especially kind; check out the critics roundup I posted or just read Kenneth Turan's sharply executed review, which is about the best I've read and representative of the widely held view that in essence boils down to the statement "If you're a passionate fan of the book you'll enjoy the film, but otherwise..."). But even the money-making performance of the film is open to interpretation, as you can see in Patrick Goldstein's Big Picture column today.
Personally, I thought the film had outsized amibition, an obvious passion for the source material and some truly great moments (that staggeringly good early montage sequence, the sequence where Dr. Manhattan slides back-and-forth through time recounting his life journey and, well, pretty much any scene with Jackie Earle Haley) but long chunks where it feels somewhat hollow. I found myself wondering how anyone who hadn't read the book could hang in for the loooong haul of the movie. I also winced whenever the actor playing Richard Nixon came on screen with his hambone imitation and rubber nose.
At the same time, I'm oddly proud of the film for even existing. It took a comic book series I adored since the day it came out and made it, with great reverence, into nothing less than the boldest popcorn movie ever made. Snyder somehow managed to get a major studio to make a movie with no stars, no "name" superheroes and a hard R-rating, thanks to all those broken bones, that oddly off-putting Owl Ship sex scene and, of course, the unforgettable glowing blue penis.
I think there's a good chance that, like "Fight Club," this movie will echo in pop culture for quite a while and become a landmark moment that will take on different contours when viewed in hindsight. Not everyone agrees with me, of course ...