'Watchmen': First flop of the year?
Could the most anticipated fanboy movie of the year possibly be a flop? So says the Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt, who's posted a scathing review of the upcoming "Watchmen," calling the movie "nihilistic and campy," predicting that after a big opening weekend the "box-office slide could be drastic." What's wrong with Zack Snyder's film? Where to begin? Honeycutt writes:
"Snyder and writers David Hayter and Alex Tse never find a reason for those unfamiliar with the graphic novel to care about any of this nonsense. And it is nonsense.... The set pieces are surprisingly flat and the characters have little resonance. Fight scenes don't hold a candle to Asian action. Even the digital effects are ho-hum. Armageddon never looked so cheesy.... The stories are too absurd and acting too uneven to convince anyone. The appearances of a waxworks Nixon, Kissinger and other 1980s personalities will only bring hoots from less charitable audiences. Looks like we have the first real flop of 2009."
Variety's Justin Chang was somewhat kinder in his review, acknowledging that true fans of Alan Moore's landmark graphic novel will "thrill to every pulpy line of dialogue and bloody act of retribution." But even Chang was somewhat underwhelmed by the film's array of visually striking costumed superheroes, saying: "The movie is ultimately undone by its own reverence; there's simply no room for these characters and stories to breathe of their own accord, and even the most fastidiously replicated scenes can feel glib and truncated.... The film seems to yield to the very superhero cliches it purports to subvert."
I'm betting "Watchman" can survive an entire tsunami of bad reviews--it's certainly not the kind of movie that depends on any critical valentines for success. But I'm eagerly anticipating the next batch of reviews, if only to see how the critics end up describing Billy Crudup's Jon Osterman--a.k.a. Dr. Manhattan. Noting his especially striking physique, Chang writes that Dr. Manhattan is endowed with "an often visible set of cerulean genitalia," while Honeycutt describes him as "a naked, glowing giant, looking a little bit like the Oscar statuette only with actual genitalia."
It's just a guess, but it sounds like that might be the only time anyone mentions the Oscars in their "Watchmen" reviews.
RELATED:
"The most anticipated fanboy movie of the year"
And here I was thinking that Star Trek was due to be released in '09 as well.
Posted by: John | February 27, 2009 at 02:48 PM
Too Bad...was looking forward to it.
Posted by: rg | February 27, 2009 at 02:48 PM
Honeycutt's review would be a lot more credible if he didn't seem to dismiss the genre and the story right off the bat as foolish. It would help if he'd gotten some of the main story points right, too.
Too many critics fail to look beyond their own preferences and generational attitude toward films to recognize or admit that things like superhero movies really are worthwhile and truly connect with audiences.
Posted by: Tom McLean | February 27, 2009 at 02:57 PM
Hmm. Been following the RottenTomatoes page on this with interest. Up to 25 reviews at time of writing, and still 80% landing in general on the positive side. Wondering why it's the two most negative reviews that are generating headlines of their own...?
'Course, that's a hopelessly naive question. 'Good news' is virtually an oxymoron.
Watchmen reviews, on the whole, are fairly positive, with a consensus that acknowledges several flaws, but an overall attitude that these are understandable and well compensated. Warner Bros oughtn't to be panicking over this alarmism.
Give it a few more days yet.
Posted by: J | February 27, 2009 at 03:36 PM
Rotten Tomatoes has this at 80% fresh so far. There are bound to be some negative reviews for a movie based on such difficult source material.
Posted by: Mitsu | February 27, 2009 at 04:59 PM
I could really care less how people who never read the graphic novel feel about a movie about a graphic novel. It is a shame that so many comic book movies are dumbed down to be enjoyable by larger audiences who would never be caught dead reading a comic book...in fact, this may be an early indicator that true fans will love it and everyone else will hate it. I'm totally fine with that.
Posted by: Angelique | February 27, 2009 at 05:13 PM
And I thought any fanboy worth his weight in gelfings is already drooling over Jim Camaron's Avatar. I know I can't wait.
Posted by: Shane | February 27, 2009 at 05:17 PM
While we're looking at Rotten Tomatoes, consider the case of Starship Troopers: a very nerdy Sci Fi flick that received only 62% on Rotten Tomatoes and still managed to gross $121 million back in 1998. Why? Because every Heinlein fan saw it. Alan Moore has a similarly strong fanbase, and I predict even if the critics HATE it it will still do very well.
Posted by: Angelique | February 27, 2009 at 05:19 PM
He wrote "other 1980s personalities"? I would've thought Nixon and Kissinger were '60s or '70s personalities.
Posted by: Gina Dalfonzo | February 27, 2009 at 07:16 PM
I nevar listen to these critics, they sit on psych couches and speel a well sung song of I am the only one listen to me. I will watch it myself and creetic it! ;)
Posted by: thiaCyn | February 27, 2009 at 10:27 PM