# The Watchmen....unwatchable?



## Felon (Mar 3, 2009)

Currently has a whopping 30 metascore over at metacritic.com based on five reviews:

Watchmen (2009): Reviews

Five reviews ain't a lot, but they include The New Yorker, Hollywood Reporter, and Variety, who tend to be trendsetters for all of those smartass reviewers who got into the business for the sheer joy of trashing other people's work. 

In general, the buzz seems to be that it will be deemed impossible to appreciate by anyone who isn't a fan of the graphic novel.


----------



## Mort (Mar 3, 2009)

Felon said:


> Currently has a whopping 30 metascore over at metacritic.com based on five reviews:
> 
> Watchmen (2009): Reviews
> 
> Five reviews ain't a lot, but they include The New Yorker, Hollywood Reporter, and Variety, who tend to be trendsetters for all of those smartass reviewers who got into the business for the sheer joy of trashing other people's work.




Its Tomatometer rating is currently75% based on 36 reviews. With the consensus: its technical and thematic strengths overwhelm its narrative shortcomings. 



Felon said:


> In general, the buzz seems to be that it will be deemed impossible to appreciate by anyone who isn't a fan of the graphic novel.




I've also heard (and read) the opposite. That fans of the comic book won't be as impressed because the comic book does everything the movie does, but better.

Will just have to see and judge for myself.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 3, 2009)

The reviews in the British press after the premiere were positive. As for Metacritic... Anthony Lane at the New Yorker is physically incapable of liking a science fiction, fantasy, or comic book film. He lacks the necessary gene. Why they send him to do so at this point is a mystery. I don't know the Hollywood Reporter guy, but the consensus seems to be the the film is too reverential towards the source material, and if he thinks it's all nonsense, well then... David Edelstein is a good critic and actually _capable_ of enjoying genre movies, so his opinion is worth considering.

Still, I won't know if it's unwatchable until Saturday afternoon after I've seen it. As for predicting how accessible the general public will find it... who knows? I sincerely thought The Dark Knight should have been a bomb (great film, not exactly an uplifting, cathartic superhero story).


----------



## Felon (Mar 3, 2009)

Mort said:


> Its Tomatometer rating is currently75% based on 36 reviews. With the consensus: its technical and thematic strengths overwhelm its narrative shortcomings.



I'm not familiar with Rottentomatoes. Are those 36 comprised of professional reviewers? The "Top Critics" tab gives only 17%.

Watchmen should have a strong opening weekend at any rate, having no real competition. I'm setting my goals low: I just don't want Watchmen to bomb so bad that it sours the superhero movie craze, because I'm planning to buy a nice chunk of Marvel stock this year. Of course, by the same token, just enough of a bomb to drive down confidence in superhero films wouldn't be such a terrible thing.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Mar 3, 2009)

So, a friend of mine got preview tickets, and she asked if I wanted to go.

Now, this friend is, well, not into comics.  At all.  And she doesn't like stuff that would get a movie R-rated, like really graphic violence and sex.

You know, the stuff that's in the comic book.

I felt so...odd...explaining this to her, like I was persuading her she didn't want to go.

Brad


----------



## Mort (Mar 3, 2009)

Felon said:


> I'm not familiar with Rottentomatoes. Are those 36 comprised of professional reviewers? The "Top Critics" tab gives only 17%.
> 
> Watchmen should have a strong opening weekend at any rate, having no real competition. I'm setting my goals low: I just don't want Watchmen to bomb so bad that it sours the superhero movie craze, because I'm planning to buy a nice chunk of Marvel stock this year. Of course, by the same token, just enough of a bomb to drive down confidence in superhero films wouldn't be such a terrible thing.




Wikipedia has a much better description than I could come up with; short version: "top critic" generally = professional, while not top critic does not = not professional.


----------



## Desert Hare (Mar 3, 2009)

I went out earlier all by my lonesome and bought a ticket for Watchmen.

After the first fifteen minutes I got up, walked to the ticket office and got a refund.


----------



## Knightfall (Mar 3, 2009)

Desert Hare said:


> I went out earlier all by my lonesome and bought a ticket for Watchmen.
> 
> After the first fifteen minutes I got up, walked to the ticket office and got a refund.



Wow. 0_o

That's not good to hear!


----------



## Krug (Mar 3, 2009)

Well I know one guy who can't be bugged: 
Profile: Alan Moore, the man with a graphic vision | Books | The Observer


----------



## Crothian (Mar 3, 2009)

Desert Hare said:


> I went out earlier all by my lonesome and bought a ticket for Watchmen.
> 
> After the first fifteen minutes I got up, walked to the ticket office and got a refund.




Why?


----------



## Thanee (Mar 3, 2009)

Crothian said:


> Why?




Indeed. Without a reason that's a rather pointless statement.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 3, 2009)

Just some infor here:

300 at Rottentomatoes was 60% after 215 reviews, with Top Critics giving it a 47%.  Metacritic gave it a 51, 6.9 by users.  It take: Domestic:  $210,614,939 (46.2%) + Foreign:  $245,453,242 (53.8%) = Worldwide:  $456,068,181.  BoxofficeMojo gave it a B+.

Oh, check out the numbers for Paul Blart: Mall Cop, Metacritic's has it at 39, users 5.5.  Rottentomatoes was 29%, Top Critics: 30.  It's take: Domestic:  $128,107,912 (100.0%) + Foreign:  $20,851 (0.0%) = Worldwide:  $128,128,763.  BoxofficeMojo rating: B-.

Just saying...Critics have a statement and a benchmark; *Is it Oscar worthy?*  When you remember that, the ratings start to make sense.

Oh, BoxofficeMojo gives Watchmen an A- at 74 reviews.
As:  62  83.8% 
Bs:  6  8.1% 
Cs:  0  0.0% 
Ds:  0  0.0% 
Fs:  6  8.1%


----------



## Mercutio01 (Mar 3, 2009)

Most critics are worthless.  I'd argue that Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were not all that different, but one got an Oscar because the critics loved Heath Ledger and the other got nothing.

These are the same people who loved Slumdog Millionaire and have given critical kudos to some of the most boring tripe ever to be filmed.   Critics are generally privileged prima donnas who have forgotten what was important about film (entertainment) and pretend to like garbage because they think they're supposed to.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 3, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> These are the same people who loved Slumdog Millionaire...



Because it's a wonderful movie.



> Critics are generally privileged prima donnas who have forgotten what was important about film (entertainment) and pretend to like garbage because they think they're supposed to.



People are entertained by different things.


----------



## Styracosaurus (Mar 3, 2009)

RottenTomatoes is a good site.  You can gauge how well it fits your tastes and use the reviews accordingly.

I miss Siskel and Ebert (in their various incarnations).  When they reviewed a movie, I knew whether I wanted to go see it or not.  They could relate value to genre, action sequences, sex appeal, performances and plot twists.  Often, they could give two thumbs down but still recommend the movie to fans of the genre.  They could relate how a movie failed in its goal.  They MADE movie reviewing cool.  The review itself was fun.

Now, I have to read elitist crap (Fort Worth Star Telegram) from the lead reviewer.  His preferences overshadow the review.  It makes that part of the paper useless.

Sometimes it seems that reviewers all watch each other and follow the pack.


----------



## lrsach01 (Mar 3, 2009)

I saw a preview last night. Comic fans are going to love it. Non-comic fans.. well... I think it's going to be a toss up on them. Personally, I think it's going to do Incredible Hulk numbers but no where near Iron Man or Dark Knight.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Mar 3, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Because it's a wonderful movie.



I was bored.  I thought the book was better, but still not good.



> People are entertained by different things.



Indeed, which is why critics who seek to negate 'art' can be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## Desert Hare (Mar 3, 2009)

Knightfall said:


> Wow. 0_o
> 
> That's not good to hear!





Crothian said:


> Why?





Thanee said:


> Indeed. Without a reason that's a rather pointless statement.




It failed to keep my attetion. If I don't like a movie, I get up and get a refund.

If I'm at home and watching a movie I've never seen before and it fails to establish a plot or keep me entertained in the first 15 minutes, I change the channel.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 3, 2009)

Desert Hare said:


> It failed to keep my attetion. If I don't like a movie, I get up and get a refund.




In what way?  This sounds less like a negative review of the movie since you didn't give it much of a chance and a little more like you have ADD or something.


----------



## DonTadow (Mar 3, 2009)

Desert Hare said:


> I went out earlier all by my lonesome and bought a ticket for Watchmen.
> 
> After the first fifteen minutes I got up, walked to the ticket office and got a refund.



So you watched.. what under 9 percent of the movie, made a decision of its story and ten walked out?  You went to somehow see a movie that hasn;t been released yet as well?  Just on a whim? In Maine?  

Sounds like BS or you have a short attention span.


----------



## Sir Osis of Liver (Mar 4, 2009)

Crothian said:


> In what way?  This sounds less like a negative review of the movie since you didn't give it much of a chance and a little more like you have ADD or something.





That's  wicked funny i was thinking the exact same thing, and BLAMO! there's your post.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 4, 2009)

Heh..  I did the same thing that Desert Hare did but to the Weatherman, so I kow it's possible.


----------



## Felon (Mar 4, 2009)

Yeah, but Desert Hare gives the impression that he makes a habit of going to movies, buying tickets, and then getting up and walking out after 15 minutes if it doesn't "grab" him...which would be a bizarre way to approach moviegoing.


----------



## Desert Hare (Mar 5, 2009)

Felon said:


> Yeah, but Desert Hare gives the impression that he makes a habit of going to movies, buying tickets, and then getting up and walking out after 15 minutes if it doesn't "grab" him...which would be a bizarre way to approach moviegoing.




She, thank you very much.

And I don't go to the theater all that often. Only 2-3 times a month. That's why I like to get my money's worth.


----------



## Felon (Mar 6, 2009)

Desert Hare said:


> She, thank you very much.
> 
> And I don't go to the theater all that often. Only 2-3 times a month. That's why I like to get my money's worth.



2-3 times a month actually seems fairly frequent I'd say.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 6, 2009)

Ya, unless you are going to 20 movies a month, 2-3 is quite a lot.


----------



## Baumi (Mar 6, 2009)

Imdb gave it an 8.5 so far. 

Watchmen (2009)


----------



## Amellia (Mar 6, 2009)

I'm going to see it for Jeffrey Dean Morgan. I loved him on Supernatural, and I'm sure I'll love him in Watchmen too. He's supposed to appear on the interview circuit today on the View, so I'm wondering if he's going to respond to the mixed/negative critical reviews the show's been getting.


----------



## Darthjaye (Mar 6, 2009)

First off, it's not entirely the original story and without spoiling it I would say, it was enjoyable for what it was.   It has been changed from the source material but i didn't find it one bit less entertaining for the alterations made.   The average joe (and here in Vegas there were a bunch of them out at the midnight showing last night) were completely entertained and seemed to like it so the thing about this being only enjoyable by fans of the comic or comics in general is bullpucky.   

Go see it and make your own call.....and for goodness sake stay for the movie if your gonna waste the gas to go there in the first place.   Otherwise your just being silly and wasteful.   


SEMI SPOILER ALERT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SPOILER NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh and btw the first few minutes is a montage of the world events leading up to and covering the history of said world so nice going again for the person who left a mere few minutes on a day when the movie isn't even available...nice going ADD Lad/lass.  I am pretty sure someone in NY, LA, or here would have gotten a sneak before some small town in Maine would have.

SPOILER OVER-----SCROLL ON TO NEXT ENTRY DAMMIT!!!!


----------



## DonTadow (Mar 6, 2009)

Desert Hare said:


> It failed to keep my attetion. If I don't like a movie, I get up and get a refund.
> 
> If I'm at home and watching a movie I've never seen before and it fails to establish a plot or keep me entertained in the first 15 minutes, I change the channel.



A sad illustratoin of today's youth. I have yet to read anything worthwhile from this new poster in any thread. And the fact that you attempt to judge anything off of a portion of itself explains everything.


----------



## Felon (Mar 6, 2009)

Well, things are looking up a bit at Metacritic. It's at a wishy-washy 57, but that comes on the heels of some unreserved praise, including Roger Ebert who, whether I agree with him or not about any particular movie, always struck me as a reviewer who didn't get some huge kick out saying negative things about a film.


----------



## Krug (Mar 6, 2009)

Watchmen scores at the box-office: Midnight 'Watchmen' does $4.6 mill - Entertainment News, Film News, Media - Variety


> Warner Bros.' "Watchmen" grossed $4.6 million in Thursday midnight runs, more than double the midnight gross for Zack Snyder's previous film "300."
> 
> Pic played more than 1,595 midnight run across the country.
> 
> All of the 124 Imax midnight runs were sold out to the point that the exhib added 3 a.m. shows. Imax says much of the weekend is sold out.



Have seen it and given it 7/10. Review in the rate the watchmen thread.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Mar 6, 2009)

DonTadow said:


> A sad illustratoin of today's youth. I have yet to read anything worthwhile from this new poster in any thread. And the fact that you attempt to judge anything off of a portion of itself explains everything.




She's had plenty of worthwhile posts.  And I also don't agree with judging a movie on the first 15 minutes*, but still.  That's just too rude to say that, and it's a borderline personal attack.

*Actually, there are a lot of times I've accurately judged a movie within the first 15 minutes -- usually when it's spectacularly bad, spectacularly awesome, or so spectacularly bad that I enjoy it and can't stop watching.


----------



## Krug (Mar 6, 2009)

Ebert likes - 4 stars:
Watchmen :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews


----------



## Crothian (Mar 6, 2009)

Our IMAX viewing seem to be all sold out for the weekend already as are many of the popular time slots.  That's good news for the movie.


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 7, 2009)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> *Actually, there are a lot of times I've accurately judged a movie within the first 15 minutes -- usually when it's spectacularly bad, spectacularly awesome, or so spectacularly bad that I enjoy it and can't stop watching.




I ditched Oscar-winning Gladiator 15 minutes in, and theater hopped to see Love and Basketball instead.

Oh, and I also ditched Ultraviolet, and instead watched Dave Chappelle's Block Party. _That_ was a good choice, I think.

Watchmen was groovy.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Mar 8, 2009)

When I saw it this afternoon, there were only 15 people there in a 300+ seat theater. I don't know if it was the demographics of the area, or that Watchman has a dedicated but small following that will see it early, and at IMAX.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 8, 2009)

9/10 for me, found it to be great!

Friday's take:


> In its full opening day, Watchmen pulled in an estimated $25.1 million on approximately 7,500 screens at 3,611 theaters, including an estimated $4.55 million from its first midnight shows. That ranks as the eighth-highest grossing opening day for a superhero movie and 32nd among all movies. Adjusted for ticket price inflation, other comic book adaptations rate higher opening days, including the first X-Men and Hulk pictures, but Watchmen's first day wasn't far off from the first weekends of previous Alan Moore adaptations V for Vendetta and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
> 
> Among R-rated movies, Watchmen's opening day was fifth behind The Matrix Reloaded, 300, Sex and the City and The Passion of the Christ. 300, the previous picture from Watchmen director Zack Snyder and the one referenced prominently in Watchmen's advertising campaign, raked in $28.1 million in its opening day on around 4,800 screens at 3,103 sites. That picture was released in early March 2007 and holds the overall March record for opening weekend ($70.9 million).


----------



## Krug (Mar 8, 2009)

Opening credits: Watchmen: The Best Part Of Watchmen Online Now


----------



## Sabathius42 (Mar 8, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> I ditched Oscar-winning Gladiator 15 minutes in, and theater hopped to see Love and Basketball instead.
> 
> Oh, and I also ditched Ultraviolet, and instead watched Dave Chappelle's Block Party. _That_ was a good choice, I think.
> 
> Watchmen was groovy.




If you literally CAN'T watch Gladiator....well...then...you have some harsh cut-offs for what makes an unwatchable movie.

DS


----------



## Umbran (Mar 9, 2009)

DonTadow said:


> A sad illustratoin of today's youth....





Um, you want to make this discussion a little less personal, please?  Thanks much.


----------



## Krug (Mar 9, 2009)

Easter egg:







The Waynes in the background, with Alfred. Batman posters on the wall, outside the Gotham City opera house.


----------



## Aristotle (Mar 9, 2009)

I went to see the movie last night, having a great deal of interest in comics but never having read these books in particular, and I have to say ... I thought it was brilliant. It was dark and violent without apology. I love how it showed how a number of people with the same basic intentions could rationalize completely different paths based on their individual morales.

I rarely trust the opinions of mainstream movie critics when it comes to sci-fi and fantasy.


----------



## satori01 (Mar 10, 2009)

If you are a fan of the graphic novel then I think you will like the movie.   A very honest and true adaptation....yes there is a change to the plot...but the change is logical, and frankly better than the ending in the book.

In terms of adapting difficult source material beloved by geekdom, I rank this movie along side the Fellowship of the Ring.

My only very minor quibble, is I feel the simultaneous temporal experience of Dr. Manhattan could have been handled a little differently for more impact...(it stayed a little too true to the comic there)...but that is a very minor complaint.

One person of my movie party had not read the graphic novel...and liked it very much.


----------



## Krug (Mar 10, 2009)

Gah... folks need to stop dissing the squid.

[sblock]Much has been made about the changed ending in the Watchmen movie, which I initially liked. But after re-looking at the comic book, I think folks should stop dissing the squid.

The ending of the comic was more than giant calamri. It was also a ton of blood and bodies that the film's all too convenient and clean disintegration that failed to capture the horror Veidt had done. Even the other cities (Beijing? Berlin? Baghdad?) that Veidt devastated were little more than dots on a radar screen. If you go view Dave Gibbons' parade of bodies in issue #12, a slow pan across New York, there's no doubt the comic conveys the full impact of the greatest 'practical joke'.

Also, the bodies in the comic version callback to Tales of the Black Freighter, the pirate comic that has been excluded in the movie. (Available separately; figures). The protagonist of that piece builds a raft out of bloated corpses, much like Veidt has.

So remember why the big ugly mild-blowing alien squid is there. In a pre-911 world, it worked, and frankly it still could have. [/sblock]


----------



## Umbran (Mar 10, 2009)

Krug said:


> Gah... folks need to stop dissing the squid.




Within a comics genre, the squid was good enough.  A nice reference to Cthuloid horrors, and such.

But let's face it - most folks aren't comic readers.  They know superheroes well enough to watch, but they aren't real deep in the genre.  To them, the squid would have been kinda cheesy.  CheesySquid.

I think the chosen method resonates more with the current audience, with less overt gore.


----------



## DonTadow (Mar 10, 2009)

They built up Manhattans devastating power well enough with visuals that I did get that sea of dead bodies feeling from the end of the book.  Seeing so many disintegrated people was a bit more agonizing.  I guess that's how it is when you don't see a body, its just something creepy about it. It's probably an inherent spiritual thing where you want to say goodbye but there's nothing to say it too. Just emptiness.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 10, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Within a comics genre, the squid was good enough.  A nice reference to Cthuloid horrors, and such.
> 
> But let's face it - most folks aren't comic readers.  They know superheroes well enough to watch, but they aren't real deep in the genre.  To them, the squid would have been kinda cheesy.



The squid has been considered cheesy by plenty of comic readers, too - it's been a topic of much argument since Watchmen was published.


----------



## GSHamster (Mar 11, 2009)

I think the squid was slightly better than the chosen method. They both got the general idea across, but the squid has better nuances.

[sblock]With the squid, mankind bands together because of fear of the Unknown, the idea that there is _something else_ out there, and our differences become unimportant in the face of that.

With Dr. Manhattan, mankind bands together out of fear of an angry, vengeful god. A god that they created. Dr. Manhattan isn't exactly the Unknown, he is a child that outstripped his parents.  Plus, I think a lot of people would blame the USA for his actions, given that he was their weapon for so long. And that cuts against the unity.[/sblock]


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Mar 11, 2009)

GSHamster said:


> I think the squid was slightly better than the chosen method. They both got the general idea across, but the squid has better nuances.
> 
> [sblock]With the squid, mankind bands together because of fear of the Unknown, the idea that there is _something else_ out there, and our differences become unimportant in the face of that.
> 
> With Dr. Manhattan, mankind bands together out of fear of an angry, vengeful god. A god that they created. Dr. Manhattan isn't exactly the Unknown, he is a child that outstripped his parents. Plus, I think a lot of people would blame the USA for his actions, given that he was their weapon for so long. And that cuts against the unity.[/sblock]



This is my biggest problem with the change to the ending.


----------



## Victim (Mar 11, 2009)

More advanced genetic engineering is one thing, but suddenly introducing teleportation and psychics seems to be against the limited superpowers premise.


----------



## Richards (Mar 12, 2009)

But they're not "suddenly introducing teleportation" - Dr. Manhattan has demonstrated that teleportation is possible; Adrian just finds a way to do mechanically what Dr. Manhattan can do with his own mind.

By the way, I really get a kick out of the fact that in the Watchmen universe, the arguably most powerful being in the galaxy is named Jonathan - even if he insists on spelling it without that first "h."  

Johnathan


----------



## Victim (Mar 13, 2009)

Richards said:


> But they're not "suddenly introducing teleportation" - Dr. Manhattan has demonstrated that teleportation is possible; Adrian just finds a way to do mechanically what Dr. Manhattan can do with his own mind.




Copying Manhattan's technology to make big bombs is not really a new development - the world already had plenty of huge bombs.

Making teleportation devices, OTOH, is big deal, since there aren't really any close substitutes.  It doesn't take the world's smartest man to come up with sticking weapons in the teleporter.


----------

