ROTTEN TOMATOES: Box Office Guru Wrapup: Watchmen Scores $55.7 Million Opening Comments

Box Office Guru Wrapup: Watchmen Scores $55.7 Million Opening

by Gitesh Pandya | March 08, 2009

Summary

The adult-themed superhero film Watchmen seized control of the North American box office posting the biggest debut of the year with an estimated $55.7M in ticket sales over the Friday-to-Sunday period. Directed by Zack Snyder (300, Dawn of the Dead), the R-rated film based on the acclaimed 1986 comic series averaged a muscular $15,413 from 3,611 theaters. It was the third best March opening ever trailing 300 ($70.9M) and Ice Age: The Meltdown ($68M) and the sixth largest bow for an R-rated film after The Matrix Reloaded ($91.8M), The Passion of the Christ ($83.8M), 300, Hannibal ($58M), and Sex and the City ($57M). Back to Article

(1-103 of 103 posts) | Reply

Sammmy Jankis writes:
on Mar 08 2009 04:32 PM

I didn't like Watchmen at all. I thought it butchered the graphic novel.

(Reply to this)

BatsInTheBelfry writes:
on Mar 08 2009 04:47 PM

It definitely could've been better, but I thought overall it was worth seeing. I was expecting more of a $65 million opening with its record release and all.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Mar 08 2009 04:49 PM

I LOVED Watchmen, seen it twice and will go again this week. I am trying not to compare it to the graphic novel, and even if I did the movie would still look really good. I only wished it was longer. This is by NO MEANS a bomb, it wasn't huge like people thought (like I thought) but it still performed well. Depends on how it holds up I think. I think Non-Watchmen fans have really not been liking it, I have met people who've hated it. On Yahoo it has like a B- but you cant trust those ratings because all Tyler Perry movies there all have like A minuses. WATCHMEN is already on IMDBS top 250 list, I wonder how long it will be there... Also this was an R rated 2 hour and 40 minute movie that out performed Batman Begins and Superman Returns, so I don't see this being a bomb at all. Plus Warners is going to make a crap load of money with there DVD releases.

(Reply to this)

hope524 writes:
on Mar 08 2009 05:02 PM

three people here hated it (all non-novel fans). Awkward, terrible music choices. Half a dozen groups in our theater filtered out at various points thru the flick.

(Reply to this)

Colyn B. writes:
on Mar 08 2009 05:09 PM

I thought the movie was so boring as hell and I am a Graphic Novel fan. Unless Rorschache was on the screen killing people I wanted to go to sleep, or shoot myself either one. This movie was a complete and utter dissapointment.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Mar 08 2009 05:21 PM

In reply to this comment (#2361548)
I LOVED the music choices. They were generally great pop culture references- Ride of The Valkyries I thought was a good Apocalypse Now reference, and I loved it when HALLELUJAH- that scene was funny and it was suppose to be. I also loved the Nat King Cole song in the beginning fight. I thought they were all brave choices, and I can respect bravery even if it always isn't successful.

(Reply to this)

UmbrellaLandFood writes:
on Mar 08 2009 05:29 PM

In reply to this comment (#2361556)
ok i never read the graphic novel and saw the movie and loved it
i want to read the novel so bad now i thought the superheros were all amazing
obviously everyone is gonna love rorschace i mean he was the micky rourke of sin city for me in this one
the music i thought could have been better but i was expecting some pumpkins and nirvana like music goin in....got hippie and classical
not bad choices though i can totallly understand each choice he made just not my kind of music
people dont like this movie because they want xmen and they got a lot more in my opinion
way more personal confliction in each character and the narration was pretty damn good imo
but ya it was long, but so was TDK, LOTR, ect..... some movies need the extra hour to just be awesome

(Reply to this)

beatlefan74 writes:
on Mar 08 2009 05:36 PM

This is going to sound harsh, but I absolutely believe its true...
I think that those who did not like Watchmen just didn't understand what it was about. They thought it was supposed to be some actioney superhero beat-'em-up, but didn't understand the thematic and tonal complexity and intelligence that it brought to the table. From a plot standpoint, no, it doesn't hold up to films like TDK, but from a thematic standpoint, this film was one with a message, and if you weren't looking for that message, you walked out disappointed.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Mar 08 2009 05:42 PM

In reply to this comment (#2361596)
I wouldn't go down the "they dont understand route", I just think a lot of people (NOT EVERYONE) was expecting an action movie... also yeah I liked it more then The Dark Knight. Maybe Snyder didn't make it accessible enough to general audiences but I think if he did that then in all honesty it would lose what makes it Watchmen.

(Reply to this)

curtis O. writes:
on Mar 08 2009 05:47 PM

Sorry but Watchmen was not good at all. The story was a mess. The music was great but i am happy it did not do to well in the boxoffice. Based on WOM,the legs will not be to good aswell. It was just to long boring for alot of people.

PS.

Good for Madea,Taken, and Blart and Slumdog. Those films are really becoming big hits.

(Reply to this)

niall1 writes:
on Mar 08 2009 05:51 PM

In reply to this comment (#2361611)
i agree with you that most people probably thought that it was going to be an action movie and i think that watchmen was a great adaptation..i had my doubts about snyder but he really knocked it out of the park..i thought he really got through it perfectly, i have a ton of respect for him now for being able to keep it faithful to the series..EXCEPT THE ENDING..those who have read watchmen know what im talking about..the ending SHOULDVE BEEN KEPT THE SAME..but besides that i thought it was great..

(Reply to this)

reavus4983 writes:
on Mar 08 2009 05:52 PM

I thought the first 3/4 were great, especially Rorschach's noir storyline, who was simply bad *** and the most human of all of them (wish the entire movie was about him). It also did an awesome job of showing the heroes at their points in time. The end, post-prison break sequence, got cliche and boring, and I was getting really tired of seeing member 1 of the Blue Man Group's penis. Not sure if these are the movie's or the comic's fault since I haven't read it. Still, even with those complaints, it was much less homo erotic (and better all around) than 300, one of the most painful and mind-numbing movies I've ever had to sit through. At least Watchmen is analyzable and only about 5 minutes was slow motion, compared to 45 of 300. Guess that is a good way to save money by not having to film as much though...

(Reply to this)

mightysourdough writes:
on Mar 08 2009 06:04 PM

I have never read the novel, but I am a pretty big comic fan. I loved about the first 45min of watchmen, then it was really hit or miss for me. The music was just weird in parts. I get what the were trying to do with the music but I think they tried to hard. A few things I did't get that I'm sure I would if I had read the novel. I left the therte hating the film but could't get it out of my head. I now find myself looking forward to seeing it again. I just did't get the horned ligra that showed up at the end. And I wish there was less blue penis.

(Reply to this)

willpower writes:
on Mar 08 2009 06:18 PM

WM was up and down for me, lots of really great, cool parts like Dr. Manhattan, Roshack (sp?) and just flat out how ambitious and gutsy the thing was. It is a very unique film that dealt with hardcore topics and I think overall this is the best any fan of the GN could hope for.

I understand the people that disliked it, it felt very slow at times, pacing was an issue but the music was totally 80's and you gotta love that, c'mon!

(Reply to this)

bribios writes:
on Mar 08 2009 06:19 PM

Didnt read the comic, but I thought the movie was great. I had absolutely no problem with the music either. I thought the Tears for Fears muzac in Ozymandius' lobby was kind of clever. From what I've read of the comics ending, I think I might prefer the ending of the movie. Giant Cephalopods would have been too wierd for most people.

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Mar 08 2009 06:37 PM

Watchmen wasn't good. It had a few cool fight sequences, but was mostly just a bad joke. The music was roundly inappropriate ("The Sound of Silence" at a funeral? can you be any more obvious? Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower" as they're flying in to Antarctica? that was just completely random. "99 Luftballons" blaring for 20 seconds before fading out as owl and spectre meet) The fact that the music stuck out as much as it did is a bad sign off the bat.

This whole time Snyder had us fooled into thinking he was more than the cheesiness of his "dawn of the Dead" remake or the testosterone-soaked meat head violence of "300." The trailers for "Watchmen" made it look like a legitimate adult drama. But it turned out to be a corny, stilted exercise in reverence for the source material.

The only good performances I thought were of Rorschach and The Comedian. Everyone else pretty much hammed it up, and what I thought would be a mature story quickly turned into a juvenile comic romp with a choppy story and only momentary hints of suspense. Maybe I went in with the wrong set of expectations. If I had assumed it was going to be as campy as it was, I might have been able to enjoy it at face value. But by thinking the film would take the graphic novel seriously, my expectations were set too high.

I am recommending that people not bother seeing it in theaters. And I saw the IMAX version too, so I got the full experience. There just wasn't that much to enjoy. Oh and on a screen that big, that's a WHOLE bunch of 50 foot blue dong to have in your face. The novel dealt with the good Doctor's nudity in a much less obvious way. Overall, the film is a major disappointment.

(Reply to this)

Iceman Cometh writes:
on Mar 08 2009 06:48 PM

I loved the movie, and I have read the graphic novel. The friend I saw it with, who did not read it before, came out unsure of exactly what he saw. He said he needed to "sleep on it," which I totally understand given the complexity of the movie. I could see how the movie could be a little confusing, given that the events span 4 decades and what not. My main gripe is the scene where (SPOILER ALERT) Rorschach and Nite Owl realize Veidt is behind it all. I didn't feel like they connect all the pieces correctly, and overall it was anticlimatic (I might feel this way because I already knew Veidt was behind it, not sure). I liked the new ending, I thought it worked just as well as the novel's. Overall, great adaptation of the novel. Synder showed a lot of respect to the source material. I will be seeing this again to try and take in all the nuances of the film.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Mar 08 2009 06:49 PM

In reply to this comment (#2361632)
The problem is if they used the original ending they would have to feel in SO MUCH stuff, like the missing artist and scientist. That would have added like 20 minutes to the movie. The new ending, to me, worked perfectly fine- maybe a bit rushed but it was more effective the second time. The second time I noticed VEITDT signs on buildings being reconstructed, it was as if he was building his Utopia and gets F.ucked. Also yeah I found the Tears for Fears in the lobby scene very cool.I am not saying people dont understand it, maybe its not there cup of tea, but I believe its going to be "miss-understood" by some, it just wasn't what people were expecting I think. I DEFINITELY recommend seeing it in theaters, I haven't seen a movie so visually rich in a long time. There are so many easter eggs in the back round. Anyone else notice how Night Owl saves Mr. and Mrs. Wayne in front of the Gotham Opera house in the beginning of the credits? Did anyone else notice how Veidts plan was titled SQUID on the monitors of showing cities attacked. Anyone else notice a file titled BOYS on Veidt's computer implying he is possibly gay? I think this is a love it or hate it movie. I LOVED the music and always found it creative. My only problem was pacing, I felt the stuff that was cut, and I think Snyder's Director's Cut will be amazing. I DONT LOOK AT THIS AS A GREAT ADAPTATION, BUT AN EXCELLENT MOVIE ON ITS OWN MERIT.

(Reply to this)

damon killian writes:
on Mar 08 2009 06:56 PM

Watchmen the book was great, but I didn't particularly care for the movie. I'm surprised it's mostly Watchmen readers defending the movie because personally I think if I had never read the book I would've enjoyed the movie a lot more. It was a nice action movie; plenty of gore, nudity, and special effects, but it felt soulless compared to the book.

(Reply to this)

BatsInTheBelfry writes:
on Mar 08 2009 07:22 PM

I think the big problem was Snyder was so invested in getting the look right that he lost all "between the panel" elements like tone, pacing, and for a large part, attitude. Final judgement of course can't be made until the Director's cut, but for now, I think word of mouth will sink this film fairly quickly. Of the eight people I know who've seen it, (discounting me) only one has thought it was good enough to see it in theaters, three though it would've been better to wait for video, and four didn't like it at all.

(Reply to this)

Holly Jolly writes:
on Mar 08 2009 07:28 PM

I like comparing Watchmen to Blade Runner, thankfully Watchmen will make more money...but people who went and saw Blade Runner probably expected Star Wars and hated it.

(Reply to this)

smi1ey writes:
on Mar 08 2009 07:31 PM

I never read the graphic novel, and pretty much knew nothing about Watchmen going into the movie.

I thought it was a fantastically orchestrated movie, with more deep and dark political undertones than you can shake a stick at. Yes, I was kinda turned off by some of the music, and yes I think Rorschache was probably the best part (several of his lines got applause at the showing I went to). To those who couldn't handle the Doctor's "lower Manhattan", grow up.

If there's one thing for certain, this movie is NOT for everyone. It's like the Napoleon Dynamite of super hero movies. You either get it, and love it. Or you don't, and you hate it.

/two cents

(Reply to this)

IBelievedInHarveyDent writes:
on Mar 08 2009 08:14 PM

In reply to this comment (#2361862)
I wouldn't say that you love it if you get it and you hate it if you don't (if that is in fact what you're saying). I read the novel before seeing the movie and thoroughly enjoyed the novel. I understood everything that was going on, I knew what Snyder was trying to do with the movie, and I "got it" and I still disliked the movie. And I also wouldn't say that it's the Napoleon Dynamite of superhero movies because napoleon dynamite was ****ing retarded and a terrible film. This, on the other hand, is a great film, but I just didn't like it all that much as the novel.

(Reply to this)

Day D. writes:
on Mar 08 2009 08:21 PM

First off, I just want to say that I thought the movie was kickass. But, I'm gonna have to diagree with Jokerboy. Taken out of the context of the graphic novel the movie was just bad. It was however one of the most faithful adaptations I have seen. Even with the addition of the "renewable energy" storyline and the substitution of the Squid with a bomb, these changes to the story still made just as much sense as if they would have left it alone. Whether or not it was intentional, these changes showcase the analogous nature of the comics; as well as stay faithful to the nihilism and ethical question posed in the graphic novel: What does it take to save the world? I, personally have no problem with an adaptation that manages to change some things while still managing to preserve the attitude present in the graphic novel...oh, but calling the Crimebusters "The Watchmen" did kinda bug the **** out of me.

(Reply to this)

thobie1 writes:
on Mar 08 2009 08:22 PM

Never read the novel, and I really don't know what to say after watching the film. It was well-done, and don't have any problem with the actors' performances or use of music in the movie, but there was so much weird stuff in there that I don't know what to say about it. Was it great? Or terrible? Or just plain strange? I'd go for the last one.

(Reply to this)

smi1ey writes:
on Mar 08 2009 08:38 PM

@ IBelievedInHarveyDent

I think I was more referring to people who DIDN'T read the novel. I'm sure, as with most book to movie adaptations, the novel is always better.

And as for Napoleon Dynatmite, it's just one of those movies that you either love or hate... just like Watchmen. Thanks for helping prove my point. ;)

(Reply to this)

josuepilk writes:
on Mar 08 2009 09:26 PM

Wow. 55 million? I was way off. I really thought it would do better in its first weekend, but I guess not everyone is interested. It's hard for me to believe that people would prefer 300 to Watchmen, but ... c'est la vie. I'll have to wait to see how much it drops in its second weekend, but it looks hard pressed to break $200 million, even with IMAX.

(Reply to this)

tfortier writes:
on Mar 08 2009 09:32 PM

Hey UmbrellaLandFood, you've got yourself a really nice avatar!!

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on Mar 08 2009 09:51 PM

In reply to this comment (#2361623)
"Watchmen" didn't bomb at the box-office. 55 million is a solid number for an R rated film based on a graphic novel only comic fans know of. I haven't seen it yet (yes, I'll commit honorable suicide for my crimes) but I'm curious if you've read the graphic novel? Or were you a "Watchmen" virign walking in? In which case, I should discard everything you said, if you have read it, maybe I should mull it over, but I'm almost certain I'd like it.

(Reply to this)

screwhead100 writes:
on Mar 08 2009 09:54 PM

i thought the movie was really good and so did everyone i went with to see it but none of us ever read the graphic novel....

i thought rorschache was an great character but my personal fav was Dr.Manhatten, no im not j/k and no im not into blue weiner....i thought his part and his dialogue were phenomenal, the philosophy he brought to the table and the way he spoke, with this otherworldly figure tone, it was awesome, thats all i can say about that......

(Reply to this)

Amoral writes:
on Mar 08 2009 09:56 PM

I work at the movie theater, and was greatly anticipating this film. I enjoyed it, but was a bit surprised that the film was setup in a way that was really unfriendly to audiences unfamiliar with the original material. Of course the majority of people came confused and upset with the film. Not only had they no idea what they were walking into (The large number of young children being taken proved evidence to that), but they had no idea what they had seen considering there was little explanation behind a lot of the story. Then there is the fact that it%u2019s just plain different than anything out there, especially within the genre or the supposed genre, which certainly didn%u2019t help to give audiences any idea of what to expect. Oh but what fun I had listening to peoples reactions as they exited. As for the film itself, it, from my perspective, carried the same weight as the original material, and followed up with the whole superhero parody theme quite nicely (which I believe the music was an intentional contribution to, however if not, no body ever said art had to be intentional.) But yeah, point being, it was unfriendly to the majority of the audience, and if it weren%u2019t hype there would have been even less of a turnout.

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on Mar 08 2009 10:04 PM

In reply to this comment (#2362375)
"...young children being taken..."

WHAT?!?!

(Reply to this)

zgberg writes:
on Mar 08 2009 10:05 PM

My review of Watchmen 8:17pm
I must admit, my interest in Watchmen the comic book/ graphic novel did not not start until I saw the first promo shots on Rotten Tomatoes. When I started reading comic books in the early 90's, I was aware of Alan Moore's work, but I was concerned more with X-men and Spiderman (and the Todd Mcfarlane, Rob Liefield work) than I was the more "mature" books out there at the time (including Moore, Neil Gaiman, Frank Miller, Art Spiegleman). So when I saw that first smashing pumpkins scored Watchmen trailer about nine months ago, I said to myself," I need to get up to speed on Watchmen."

So I picked up a copy (god I wish I had the originals) of the graphic novel and eagerly started reading. Immediately, I saw the influences ranging from Bram Stoker's Dracula (the narrative journal), film noir and cold war paranoia. It may have been over 20 years since it was first published, but the themes were never more relevant, especially post 9-11.

On an artistic note, I had huge nostalgia for the much "simpler" (yet incredible) artistic style of Dave Gibbons - compared to my exposure to late 90's to the current hyper kinetic /ultra vibrant action illustration style. The 9x9 nine panels got a little boring, but they were straightforward and when it steered away from that in the last issue, it had great impact.

I knew I loved the book after the last page. "Go Rorschach!" Yes!.........

So, that brings me to the film.

Went alone this morning. I didn't want to have some entourage - I wanted to sit there on my time, and not have to defend it from detractors or completely agree with admires.

My view, after sitting through the 2:45 minute running time was..."simply amazing!"

The most amazing/ revealing performance? Jackie Earl Haley as Rorschach. I don't know any other actor that could have pulled it off - and I don't know who Jackie Early Haley is - but he nailed it. That is Rorschach, hands down.
Likewise Patrick Wilson as Night Owl was also dead on. Carla Gugino...she pulled it off. And I just loved her costume. Really really really loved it. My girlfriend is getting mad now.

Dr. Manhattan's flopping blue penis wasn't too distracting - its just hard to believe (thanks to the CGI) that I'm looking at the same guy who played the rockstar who jumped from a roof into a pool in Almost Famous.

And I can't leave without mentioning Jeffrey Dean Morgan as the Comedian. In Moore's book and this film, he is a despicable human being - yet, we cannot but help to have sympathy for him.

Yeah...the Nixon make up was bad and Malin Ackerman as Silk Spectre was a little wanting. Minor quibbles in my book. One other complaint was the soundtrack...there could have been some better choices.

Goode was ok as Veidt/Ozymandias,

Snyder pulled off a difficult adaptation. Actually, I think I like his ending better than Moore's. They both make the same point and have great impact in terms of bringing up major questions surrounding "the truth," when it should be known and should millions be sacrificed to save billions?

I think Snyder is "visionary" in the sense of figuring out a way to bring this complex material to the screen. The 2:45 minutes was long, but I knew the story, so it didn't seem to bad for me. As a matter of fact, I'm waiting for the director's cut which will include the now separate (on DVD) "Tales of the Black Freighter."

(Reply to this)

Amoral writes:
on Mar 08 2009 10:05 PM

In reply to this comment (#2362412)
Yeah, tons of people were bring their kids, of ALL ages, to the film.

(Reply to this)

screwhead100 writes:
on Mar 08 2009 10:06 PM

oh ya lwdawg, there was a couple families in my theatre as well.....probly 5 or 6 kids under the ageof 12 or 14 total....

(Reply to this)

vopmms writes:
on Mar 08 2009 10:10 PM

Aren't you guys glad it wasn't the typical stereotype super hero movie?

The characters were great and I felt they all had equal weight in the movie. I liked the bug-eye guy but thought he could have been better.

Don't bring your kids to this movie.

T2 and Star Trek looked badass!

(Reply to this)

Iceman Cometh writes:
on Mar 08 2009 10:16 PM

i work at a theatre as well, and there were definitely parents thinking they were taking their kids to see something like The Dark Knight...boy were they wrong

(Reply to this)

mightysourdough writes:
on Mar 08 2009 10:24 PM

I love Warshac(?) The comedian was awesome, also those two proformaces were the best of the movie. I thought Pat Wilson as nightowl was on of the worst acting jobs of the year so far. Now, never reading the novel I dont get Dr. Mahn. I mean why does it take him years to build that atomic sphere but he can build a giant floating glass clock out of nothing on Mars in seconds. (even though it aparently wasn't very sturdy) And what was up with the horned Ligra that showed up at the end???? All of a sudden the movie was about acent Eygpt the last 30 mins and the movie made it feel like I was suppose to see it coming...

(Reply to this)

Amoral writes:
on Mar 08 2009 10:31 PM

In reply to this comment (#2362495)
Bubastis was genetically engineered by Ozymandias. It confused a lot of people, sort of like Rorschach%u2019s mask.

(Reply to this)

Xx MooSE xX writes:
on Mar 08 2009 10:32 PM

havn't read the book, found it hard to stay awake during some scenes in the show, but i look forward to reading the book, and watching the movie again. The movies that u have to think about before u like them are usually the ones that u enjoy several times over in the future

(Reply to this)

philth writes:
on Mar 08 2009 10:53 PM

I greatly enjoyed the movie. I've read the graphic novel once eight years ago, so I'm neither a Watchmen fanboy nor a complete neophyte; take from that what you will. I didn't find it hard to follow at all, though it does go off on a lot of tangents (though I hesitate to call them tangents, since they are so often the main focus rather than the actual plot itself).

I'm a little confused by all the dislike for the songs that were played during the film. Nearly all of them were referenced in the comics in some form, and they were all either thematically relevant or appropriately ironic (or both, in the case of 99 Luftballoons, which sounds like an incongruously cheery song but is about the Cold War paranoia leading to nuclear armageddon).

The opening montage was absolutely fantastic.

(Reply to this)

That1GuyFromB4 writes:
on Mar 08 2009 10:54 PM

So, what I got from most of the comments here, is that the majority of you are children with attention spans of a pea and because there wasn't death and explosions every five minutes, the movie sucked. Grow up, guys. Maybe you should have done a little research before going into a movie that was obviously made for far more mature and intelligent individuals than yourselves. Go watch Iron Man.

(Reply to this)

Pagliacci writes:
on Mar 08 2009 10:56 PM

Having read the graphic novel and loved it, I thought the film was "really good." Not "great" but (obviously) anyone who likes the source material should see it. I disagree with some of you, I though Malin Akerman and Patrick Wilson were fine, and I enjoyed their chemistry. Of course, that didn't hold a candle to Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach. That character should and could get his own movie (prequel). I didn't fall in love with it like say, The Dark Knight, (and Heath Ledger's Joker), but I found it better than any other comic-related movie (300, V for Vendetta, the godawful Spider-Man movies).

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on Mar 08 2009 10:57 PM

In reply to this comment (#2362421)
Sounds like the perfect family film. If some folks who haven't even read the legendary graphic novel have seen it, there's no excuse for me, since I've read it once every six months since I was 13

(Reply to this)

Pagliacci writes:
on Mar 08 2009 11:00 PM

Oh and the music. Some of it was a bit odd in places, while other songs were perfect. I didn't think Bob Dylan in the opening would be a good thing, and that turned out to be one of my favorite parts. Same with "Unforgettable" and "All Along the Watchtower" (which was quoted in the graphic novel). However I found "Hallelujah" and "The Sound of Silence" to be peculiar choices for their respective scenes.

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on Mar 08 2009 11:02 PM

In reply to this comment (#2362557)
Hey, I was agreeing until you dissed "Iron Man".

(Reply to this)

Pagliacci writes:
on Mar 08 2009 11:10 PM

Oh and the ending! Squid Creature would have never worked on the big screen - what Snyder did was fine and appropriate. Of course, I think Squid Creature's "appearance" in the novel impacted me more, and left me staring at the first few pages of the final chapter...

(Reply to this)

Mr. Butler writes:
on Mar 08 2009 11:12 PM

Watchmen was exactly what I expected from Hollywood. Sex, CG explosions, and karate gimmicks. If I was retarded and had never seen an action movie, then Watchmen might impress me. The only real surprising thing about this film is how shamelessly RT promoted it.

(Reply to this)

seamos500 writes:
on Mar 08 2009 11:12 PM

I absolutly loved. It was interesting. The characters were great, and the music to me was the one of the best parts. I liked it a hell of a lot more than the dark knight, that I thought was overrated. I've told a ton of people about it and everyone I know loved it too. I plan on seeing it again. I think it will end up doing good and the dvd will sell like hotcakes too.

(Reply to this)

That1GuyFromB4 writes:
on Mar 08 2009 11:22 PM

In reply to this comment (#2362565)
I wasn't dissing Iron Man (it's my third favorite comic book movie), was just saying it's more suited for the children here that seem to have a problem with Watchmen's depth and complexity.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Mar 08 2009 11:33 PM

I just think Zack Snyder didn't make it accessible to general audiences and people didn't expect what they got from it. Does anyone else get a Blade Runner and Dark City vibe? When released people are mixed to it, some love it and some hate it. Something tells me down the line more people are going to love it. I think the Director's Cut will be AMAZING! Well at least it didn't under perform/bomb like Blade Runner, it did good and lets just see how it holds up. I will be seeing it again this week.

(Reply to this)

David A. writes:
on Mar 09 2009 12:34 AM

I must say, I wasn't expecting my less than favorable opinion to change when I viewed it a second time, and this is still in no way a perfect movie, but it's pretty good. Still, if Zack put as much effort into the characters as he did the look of the movie, I may be more impressed. I still felt detached from the characters. Again, I would like to see if the director's cut changes this aspect for me.

But those people who have read the Graphic Novel seem to appreciate what Zack did. After all, isn't it considered "the most un-filmable movie ever?" This is why people who haven't read it don't care. They have no appreciation for the bang-up job Zack did, which is where I believe the fanboy praise stems from.

That's just me, though.

(Reply to this)

Mister_Prophet writes:
on Mar 09 2009 01:46 AM

If you don't get the music choices....then you just don't get Watchmen. Or the latest you were born is 1990.

(Reply to this)

Vortex&Vertigo writes:
on Mar 09 2009 04:17 AM

Damn Warner Brothers, I bet they would have made $8 million more if they just released the movie here on Puerto Rico too, but they keep treating us like we have nothing to do with the US. I have to wait thursday too see it and I just can't wait. I haven't read the comic but I know the movie is different and I always knew it was kind of a film noir so I'm surprised that people were waiting to see an action movie.

(Reply to this)

jocampo writes:
on Mar 09 2009 04:53 AM

I have not read the graphic novel, but loved the movie - loved it so much that I just have to read the graphic novel, which I'm doing right now.

(Reply to this)

Elixor writes:
on Mar 09 2009 05:29 AM

I've read the graphic novel twice, once recently. I really like the graphic novel and was very impressed with the movie. The editing and filtering job done by Snyder and is crew is superb IMO. I was of the opinion that yeah this movie is going to look cool, but will suck in the end, because it's another nearly impossible task to turn that book into a movie. But I ended up really enjoying it. I don't know how much I would have enjoyed it without reading the book, but I completely disagree with the opinion that the book was butchered. The major story and plot was captured reasonably well and visually, it was pretty much spot on (Night Owl was only slightly off for me).

I honestly think that Watchmen was held more true to the source material here than with what Peter Jackson did with LoTRs. Snyder strayed less from the source material and just edited. Jackson and his crew added crap to a great novel series. Granted with a graphic novel you have more visual references to work off of, but I'm mainly talking story here.

I still don't expect this movie to do all that well. Most people prefer mindless 300 visuals and action. TDK is an excellent movie, but I would put Watchmen up against it, especially from a story and plot perspective.

(Reply to this)

gizgoo writes:
on Mar 09 2009 05:55 AM

Anyone that thinks the people who dont like just dont understand it is a moron. I thought they completely got Ozymandias wrong, he should have been much more charismatic and upbeat rather than the sinister dull moping guy they made him. Silk Sprectre actress sucked. I also didnt buy the new ending that the world would rally to americas side when it was their own that caused all the destruction around the world. Some stories should be told by being read and Watchmen was one of those things, translated on screen it was just flat out boring.

(Reply to this)

Pagliacci writes:
on Mar 09 2009 05:57 AM

In reply to this comment (#2362603)
Well let's not go crazy here. I liked Watchmen (the movie) a lot, but it was no Dark Knight. Uhh, Joker? Argument done.

(Reply to this)

Pagliacci writes:
on Mar 09 2009 06:00 AM

In reply to this comment (#2363397)
SPOILERS__Disagree completely about Ozymandias - I liked him MORE in the movie than the book. He wasn't a believable character in the novel, unless he was completely insane (which he may have been). The smartest guy in the world, one of the most athletic, making millions of dollars, has television specials and has no problem killing millions? Not as believable as the more dour Ozy in the movie, who you can see killing millions. He wasn't cheery, he was kind of depressed, but still saw his task as a necessity.

(Reply to this)

BUCK69 writes:
on Mar 09 2009 06:12 AM

In reply to this comment (#2363114)
The music is one of the very few problems that I have with the movie, and it's not a minor problem. That's apparent from the many posts that mirror my complaint. I've read the book and I've read Watchmen and Philosophy. I get it. For the record, I was born well before 1990. In spite of that [or maybe because of that] I found the soundtrack funny in places where it shouldn%u2019t have been. The absolute worst placement involved "Flight of the Valkyries" during the battlefield scene. It made a parody of what should've been a defining moment in the story. Louis Armstrong's "Wonderful World" would have been more appropriate. And "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" and "99 Luft Balloons" were both a little too obvious-in-your-face.

(Reply to this)

Dr. Bekk writes:
on Mar 09 2009 06:33 AM

I loved it, and it really stuck with me.

Glad it beat out Tyler Perry and Mall Cop.

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on Mar 09 2009 06:48 AM

In reply to this comment (#2362679)
Oh. Then more power to you.

(Reply to this)

ZigBallistic writes:
on Mar 09 2009 07:04 AM

I liked it, it wasn't epic like it probably should have been. The biggest thing that bothers me is the fact this probably should have been a 2 parter, there was enough stuff left out of it to just confuse those who never read the source material. The bit with the gangs, the side story with the therapist, and the bit with the newspaper stand coming to mind.

That stuff wasn't filler, it helped develop the story. I'm glad they left out the black freighter bit tho, that was the one extra part I didn't like in the book.

(Reply to this)

collex writes:
on Mar 09 2009 07:26 AM

I tought the movie was really, really good. I went to see it with my brother and my mother. My mother slept on it ( but more because she was tired than because it was boring) and my brother liked it, but not more than that (he still wants to see the director's cut)

The only two things that bugged me is the dream scene (could easily have done without it for the theatrical release, or replaced it with a more important scene like Holis Mason's death) and the song that played after the Mars sequence (don't remember what it was, but it was loud and distracting). Oh and I found the sex scene... weird? Silk Spectre really looked to enjoy it, to say the least...

I'm going to go see it next week, in the original english version this time (I was home last week, and the theater only had the french-dubbed version)

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Mar 09 2009 08:12 AM

Watchmen is like doing a virgin...its better the second time 'round. you notice little things(plus i was tired the first time, 2 in the morning) and the story seems smoother(didn't read the novel). while it still didn't achieve my expectations(which were ridiculously high) it still is a way better movie than alot of action flicks out.

once again its a movie thats made THAT much better by an amazing soundtrack. the opening credits with Dylan singing is still in my mind days later. classic stuff. if it weren't for the 30 or so minutes that slow it down...it'd be as good as it gets. its that initial snooze that kind of ruins it for people. still, great movie again from Snyder

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Mar 09 2009 08:18 AM

In reply to this comment (#2362562)
yeah, that quote would have been from the original version of the "Watchtower," the one by Bob Dylan which never gets play, and that makes sense based on other Dylan quotes in the book. To use the Hendrix version (which is one of the most overused in movies, especially any movie having to do with Vietnam) shows Snyder's immaturity.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Mar 09 2009 08:32 AM

I found Watchmen to be very pretentious. I never read the book, so I didn't really have anything invested in it and went with an open mind. To start with, I've never heard so many classic songs used in such an inappropriate way, from The Sounds of Silence to Hallelujah. Secondly, this movie demands to be taken seriously, but I just can't. Some of the premise is interesting and there are some brilliant sequences at points, but it has such an air of self-importance that is hard to swallow when the costumes are borderline cheesy.

I also have just about had it with the Zack Snyder's fight sequences. They are so over-choreographed that they don't feel all that threatening, so instead he pumps up the gore and shoves it in your face. There's nothing left to the imagination.

And good Lord, the sex scene was an embarrassment.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Mar 09 2009 08:37 AM

In reply to this comment (#2363411)
Oh yeah, I forgot about the Wagner. That was ridiculous.

(Reply to this)

josuepilk writes:
on Mar 09 2009 09:23 AM

If Last House or Race to Witch Mountain beat out Watchmen this weekend, it will be a good indicator of how well or poorly US audiences perceive the film. As for so-called parents taking their children to this movie, I think it's time they made R-rated films unavailable (with or without parental supervision) to children under 13. And it's not just about the nudity. A 10-year-old should not be exposed to that much violence and pervasive language. It's just wrong.

(Reply to this)

Eric S. writes:
on Mar 09 2009 09:29 AM

I'm glad this film didn't make as much as 300 did. Me and my other friend were the only ones out of 10 that could stay awake through out the entire film just because it was so damn boring and the action scenes besides the beginning fight were disgusting and unenjoyable. And yes the songs were so weirdly used and all the blue penis!!! 6.5/10

(Reply to this)

Eric S. writes:
on Mar 09 2009 09:31 AM

Oh and also, the entire film left out the newspaper stand people. Those are some of my favorite parts in the book, so I was upset about that.

(Reply to this)

josuepilk writes:
on Mar 09 2009 09:34 AM

arendr...
I didn't see the film, I'm waiting for the mrs. to get up for it, but was the sex scene as bad as the one in 300? It was like a painfully slow, how-to video. I was waiting for a some guy to pop-up in frame with a laser pen and say "now when the female prepares herself for the reverse cowboy she places her feet here and here..."

(Reply to this)

josuepilk writes:
on Mar 09 2009 09:37 AM

In reply to this comment (#2363635)
So in your case, Watchmen would be like masturbating?

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Mar 09 2009 09:55 AM

In reply to this comment (#2363766)
I would say that the sex scene is comparable to the one in 300, with the only exception being the exclusion of doggy style.

(Reply to this)

MadMan23 writes:
on Mar 09 2009 10:27 AM

In reply to this comment (#2361596)
you're completely wrong. the reason why I didn't like the film was that the filmmaker probably didn't even know there was a message to this movie. Playing Sound of Silence during the funeral was laughable. The tragedy of Rorschache was completely skimmed over, when he sees the pedophile, it's supposed to be a huge dreadful changing moment, the audience however doesn't feel anything except that we want revenge, we don't sense Rorschache's formation. Him killing the murderor was supposed to be just as frightening as the murderor killing the girl. I just felt the murder was exploitive.

(Reply to this)

MadMan23 writes:
on Mar 09 2009 10:41 AM

In reply to this comment (#2363735)
if you see the people working at the theater, they wouldn't be able to enforce these rules.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Mar 09 2009 11:48 AM

In reply to this comment (#2361634)
@reavus4983. Actually, to shoot slow motion, you have to shoot more film, because you have to shoot at a faster frame rate. So shooting slo-mo doesn't save money. Just FYI.

(Reply to this)

Anthony D. writes:
on Mar 09 2009 12:09 PM

I was somewhat disappointed with Watchmen. But, I was somewhat disappointed with the novel too. Rorschach was my favorite character in the book and I found myself wishing that he was the main character throughout. So I knew the movie would be the same. Even though I wasn't a big fan of the book, I still found some of the story interesting. I ultimately downloaded all of the Motion Comics on itunes. I found I liked the Motion Comics better than the book or movie... but only a little. I know the DVD will have the "Tales of The Black Freighter" parts added in, but I hope there are at least a few other scenes added. I would like to see Rorschach enter the bar in the beginning trying to get information on the Comedian. I think it makes more sense for when He and Night Owl make a return visit later in the movie. It would also be cool if there were more scenes with Rorschac's Psychiatrist. I found that part of the book interesting. And it would be clearer to show something about Veidt's "Method" so people can understand why he was as physically capable as he was. There were many details I could pick on in the movie, but Zack Snyder did a decent job. I agree that the blue penis was too much. Was that a hook for the female audience? I did notice women giggling during the movie at those moments.

(Reply to this)

Dabrizzle writes:
on Mar 09 2009 12:41 PM

Before i entered the movie i read about half of the GN. I read till about Dr. M went to Mars and I never finished it. (sue me). So when i went to see the movie I wasn't expecting much, and when i finished the movie i seemed to be the only one out of my friends who wasn't sure if they liked it. All the rest dug it.

I think alot of it has to do with what I believe. I literally turned to my friends and said " 15 million people died and nobody was sure if we were even going to have a war" and i was upset by that fact. My friend said " why are you getting all sentimental on me all of a sudden." and his gf said "I would have killed more if it was in the name of peace." I said, "but its not really peace, because peace comes from love, this "peace" comes from fear. And if your living your life in fear then it really isn't a life at all."

So now a couple of days after, I can't get the stupid movie out of my head, only because of the affect it had on me. Now I can't say i enjoyed the movie, but because i can't get it out of my head, I can not say it was a bad movie.

Also, I enjoyed the music, and I totally understand the use of the Hendrix song, listen to the Lyrics and understand what it was about, to many people take music as a tone and the instrumental part. When its the lyrics that holds the truth to the reason it was there.

Now I guess I will have to see this movie again, just to catch everything.

Also thank god for the sex scene where i got to see some tits dude. After all that blue penis, those titys and her *** looked amazing.

(Reply to this)

sean f. writes:
on Mar 09 2009 12:57 PM

I've read everyones feelings on this movie, and I feel it's time for me to chime in. This is honestly my first every post on this site, and even though I LOVE movies, posting my opinion is just something I tend not to do.

I thought the movie was great. I read the novel, read the second book, and have read some other books by Alan Moore. I enjoyed the book like pretty much everyone else, and going into the movie I was nervous that Snyder and Co. wouldn't be able to make The Watchmen, well WATCHable.

And personally I think he hit a HOMERUN. Not a GRANDSLAM, but a well derserved 3 run HOMERUN. I thought based on how diffuclut it is to make books into movies, I thought he did a damn good job. The opening scene and opening credits might go down in history they were that good. The opening scene again was brilliant!! I don't think anyone could have done it better. The first 45 mins-hour of that movie were exactly how the book went. Of course some small details were left out, but from dialogue to scenes, I felt I was reading the book all over again. I agree with most of you that the pace of the movie was a little slow at times, but that is what you get when a movie is based on a book that has about 5 action scenes total. Most of Alan Moore's books aren't action based, which is why I think Hollywood gave the movie to Snyder, because they felt with the little bit of action Watchmen had, he could make it great. Which I think he did. I think ALL the fight scenes/action scenes were great and well done. Not one fight did I walk away and go "Man that should have been longer" or "That was real choppy" (Like BOTH Batman movies)

But I also do feel that most people who LOVED this movie or just really enjoyed it have either read the book, or know of the book and "live" in the comic book world. And I only say that because I went with two people who didn't read the book and one of them just LIKED it, and the other one didn't get it and thought it would have been better if it was 90 mins long. So I do feel knowing a little bit of the story and what the book is REALLY about will only help you and make the whole experince that much better.

My last point will be about the music, only because I feel like that has been talked about WAY TOO MUCH on this blog. Calm down people. Yes some of the music maybe didn't fit the scene 100% but when is the last time you heard Nat King Cole jamming in the background of an intense murder scene? The music was bold, ballsy, and in my eyes was perfect because it was bold and ballsy. Snyder took a movie most people said could and would never be made, and in my eyes did a damn good job from start to finish. Also for as much as I enjoy the ending in the book, I agree with, I think you call yourself Jokerboy, that if they followed the books ending it would have added on 20-30 more mins, and aliens attacking just seems a little more far fetched then a guy with super powers who both the US and the USSR know is around. For a movie, the ending made much, much more sense.

I'm out

(Reply to this)

askingseven writes:
on Mar 09 2009 01:45 PM

Saw it on Friday and again on Saturday, but in IMAX. Wasn't sure what to think the first time, but after the second time I realized that Watchmen will probably go down as one of my all-time favorites. I liked most of the music choices, especially The Sound of Silence during the funeral. All Along the Watchtower was off for me at first, but I understand why it was used. I thought all the performances were good. Jackie Earl Haley was excellent though. Couldn't have asked for a better Rorschach. I was also very pleasantly surprised by Matthew Goode. I was worried about how Ozymandias would be portrayed, but I thought he did a terrific job. Dr. Manhattan's penis wasn't very distracting, at least for me. I don't know why some of the commenters tended to gravitate to the dick whenever it was on screen. Almost every nude shot has the camera centered on something more significant. You have to actually TRY and look at the penis in almost every shot because it's not supposed to be the focus. The ending worked well for the movie. Bubastis probably wasn't necessary other than for eye candy and fans of the graphic novel because of the lack of the genetic engineering aspect needed in Veidt's plan. Bubastis also looked a little second rate. Dr. Manhattan looked great though. Very well done, like Gollum in LOTR. Overall a terrific adaptation of the graphic novel and a well executed film in its own right. Can't wait for the director's cut. I plan on seeing this one at least once more, and probably 2-3 more times in the next couple weeks.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Mar 09 2009 01:45 PM

In reply to this comment (#2364078)
You know I actually LOVED the slow motion and speed ramping in the movie, I was concerned it would be like 300. It wasn't, I thought the fights looked amazing. I LOVED the over the top violence, it showed how violent real superheros would be... Yeah so I thought the action was also amazing. Also they all worked for the story, you hardly see movies with action that movie along the story or add something to the characters, reminds me of The Matrix.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Mar 09 2009 03:08 PM

People need to stop the whole elitist feeling of, "You won't understand the movie unless you've read the book," that's a really kind of condescending attitude. I took three people that had never read the book and they all followed the movie perfectly and loved it. (One took 3 of his friends to see it again on Saturday and said that it's even better the second time.)

IMO this is very much a love it or hate it movie, but I think the viewer would be rewarded with repeat viewings as I think there are additional nuances that anyone can take in that they might have missed that would make the experience that much more enjoyable. Afterall, there's a lot of things that can go into why people hated this movie. A few might not understand it, others might understand it and just weren't in the right mood, and others decided to bring their kids to watch it and were embarrassed at their stupidity when certain images flashed on stage. I would recommend it to anyone with the disclaimer that this isn't everyone's cup of tea. (That's why my girlfriend didn't go to the theater, she's going to wait to catch it on DVD.)

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Mar 09 2009 03:08 PM

In reply to this comment (#2364239)
"but its not really peace, because peace comes from love, this "peace" comes from fear. And if your living your life in fear then it really isn't a life at all."

Thanks so much for saying this. That's spot on.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Mar 09 2009 03:46 PM

In reply to this comment (#2364371)
I don't think its a matter that if you haven't read the book then you wont understand it, but its that most people are going in expecting an action movie and thats why I think a lot of people (not everyone, especially not people here) are not liking it. Lets just put it this way, not a lot of people went into the theater expecting a movie that has blue penis.

(Reply to this)

Iceman Cometh writes:
on Mar 09 2009 04:16 PM

i just finished talking to my roommate about the movie. he went in expecting something like batman or x-men, which this movie is definitely not. he really liked the movie, because it was different than those other comic book movies. however, i think that a lot of the other people who went in expecting batman/x-men left confused and disappointed, not because they didn't get it (which i'm sure some didn't) but because it was way out of their comfort zone.

(Reply to this)

nick k. writes:
on Mar 09 2009 06:04 PM

when *** *** reviews by *** *** critics who felt the intense need to bash this movie because they knew other critics would be doing the same because nobody can think for them selves anymore, and everybody wanted to be in with the cool "Watchmen bashing" crowd.... when these critics and reviews put bada** movies by bada** directors out of commission, and all we're left with is 20% rotten tomato ******* sh** like Twilight or ... Rise of the F****** Lycans, then you'll all be sorry.
Watchmen the movie was a work of art on so many levels, and deep down everyone knows this, no matter how hard they deny it - thank you Zack Snyder.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Mar 09 2009 07:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#2364565)
With all due respect, I don't think there is a "Watchmen bashing" crowd. An awful lot of people probably went into it knowing very little about the book simply because they saw the astonishing trailers and came out of it feeling like they needed to be part of a special club to enjoy the movie. I'm not saying it's on too high a level, in fact as a Watchmen-virgin I didn't really find it confusing...but it did feel a bit like walking into one of those restaurants where you need to wear a special jacket with a crest.

(Reply to this)

Zuriel C. writes:
on Mar 09 2009 08:23 PM

In reply to this comment (#2361522)
ur a fanboy...bad acting, bad pacing, uninteresting story...i dont care about lack of action...

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Mar 09 2009 08:28 PM

In reply to this comment (#2364653)
You know, I actually feel that there are people that specifically put that feeling out there that you almost have to be in a special club to watch it, IOW, you have to have read the book to understand it. It's unfortunate, because if people going in feeling like they had to read the book to understand it they'll also feel that way coming out. It's like the biggest "cult" so to speak, because to be a true comic book fan it's almost like you had to read, and enjoy, Watchmen; if you didn't there are people who won't take you seriously. (It's kind of like back in the day if you said you were a Batman fan and started talking about Aunt Harriet, people wouldn't take you seriously. Some of you will know what I'm talking about.)

I think this is a movie, though, that everyone wanted to work so badly, when one thing didn't match their expectations they started to pick the movie apart. No, the movie's not perfect, but I don't think it's deserved the vitriol that's been spewed on it, but I understand it. The movie's not for everyone, but it all depends on how you look at movies. I know I have a tendency to look over a lot of mistakes if I'm having a good time. I don't start picking apart a movie until like the 4-5 time watching it. (If I like, and even not necessarily love, a movie it's not atypical for me to watch it 10 or more times in a year, although it's getting hard with a collection 300 movies strong.) I do think some people will not like it the first time, but might like it a second or third time through, though.

(Reply to this)

MadMan23 writes:
on Mar 09 2009 08:29 PM

I thought this graphic novel would make a better movie. I guess I am in the minority. I did like the first fifteen minutes, The Comedien, and Rorschache. I just thought the film as a whole didn't work. I never felt the apocalyptic feel I got from the novel, which came mainly from the death of Hollis Mason and the newspaper guys(why Snyder thought that a freakish Nixon would have been more important is beyond me).

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Mar 10 2009 12:27 AM

In reply to this comment (#2364795)
Nixon was more important to the plotline of the movie than the death of Mason and the newpaper guys. But he will be including them into the director's cut when it comes out on dvd. He had initially intended to release the theatrical version at three hours, but the studio made him cut it down so he had to cut those parts out of the movie. The Ultimate Director's Cut will be almost three and a half hours, so that will include a lot of the things that you feel were pertinent to the story.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Mar 10 2009 12:34 AM

In reply to this comment (#2364783)
Why does that have anything to do with enjoying the movie, Zuriel C.? how you felt about the acting and the pacing on this movie seems to be a matter of opinion. A lot of people enjoyed this movie, and to me, no matter what the faults are the public speak volumes, and the general consensus seems to be that it was enjoyed. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that those who do are "fanboys" or stupid, it just means that you didn't like it. One man's trash is another man's treasure and vice versa. That might be an old saying, but it's true. What you deem as bad pacing someone else might feel it worked for them, and that bad acting you consider might be enjoyed by others. I hate it when people just sit there and rip on people for liking a movie that they don't.

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Mar 10 2009 07:42 AM

I am not directing this at anyone in particular, but what say we declare a moratorium on the following phrases:

"I LOVE how all..."

Brilliant mastery of sarcasm aside, just come out and say what you are railing against.

"nobody can think for themselves.."/"everbody jumps on the _____ bandwagon"

Given that any three opinions on this website--or even this conversation--will be violently opposed to each other, ...nothing further need to be said about this specious argument used merely as a grounds to launch one's own tirade.

"you're/you are/ur a fanboy"

Still not sure what a fanboy is or if I qualify as one but it seems that the only reason to refer to someone as a 'fanboy' is to dismiss their point of view without actually addressing it. Kudos on this wonderful time-saving device, sorry about the whole 'inability to stand on the strength of your argument' thing.

I know I will be ignored and referred to as a fanboy/f@g/@sshole or some such, but I figured it was worth a shot.

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on Mar 10 2009 10:26 AM

In reply to this comment (#2365236)
You're making sence.

(Reply to this)

nick k. writes:
on Mar 10 2009 11:41 AM

In reply to this comment (#2365236)
mhmmm dont pick out one line and say my entire comment was a hating tirade against all the other people commenting.... my point was(joking but seriously) zack snyder's future rests heavily on Watchmen and Zack Snyder makes good movies and it would be a shame to see him denied whatever opportunity he wanted for his next film because critics dissed this one so bad. To the people on this site i was saying, even if Watchmen didnt do it for you, put this movie up against Daredevil or something really bad and give Zack credit due credit for raising the bar.
Now shut up fanboy, WTF did ur comment even have to do with the success of watchmen

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Mar 10 2009 12:40 PM

nick k wrote:
Now shut up fanboy, WTF did ur comment even have to do with the success of watchmen

(sigh)

Thank you, nick k, for justifying my post so perfectly.

When you learn to read with comprehension, and outgrow what I'm sure your parents refer to as your "adorable" persecution complex, this will be a much more interesting discussion (joking but seriously--Good stuff!).

Regarding Watchmen: Having read the graphic novel 30-odd times, I was hoping to get some frame of reference on what to expect when I saw the film, this Sunday. With the exception of comments like yours, I did.

(Reply to this)

nick k. writes:
on Mar 10 2009 02:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#2365593)
hey hey....violent opposites working together to drive a point home.
How would you define your comments if not a tirade on immature commenters??
Plz take ur own critique, while sadly(joking but seriously) you wait for my reply:)

Regarding your qu**rness: if ur really as *** as u write, let's get married tonight.

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on Mar 10 2009 09:39 PM

HEY? IS THE SMASHING PUMPKINS SONG EVEN IN THE FILM? Or should I not expect it?

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Mar 11 2009 11:23 AM

In reply to this comment (#2366208)
Don't expect it, I didn't stay through the credits though, but the film features music which is more about the period.

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on Mar 11 2009 01:11 PM

Oh. I heard my boy Bob Dylan had a song in the film. If so, that makes up for it.

(Reply to this)

Tyson D. writes:
on Mar 14 2009 09:31 PM

The movie definitely has its ups and downs. I can see why it's gotten such mixed reviews, whether the reviewers have read the source material or not. I think that there were definitely a couple of miscasts in this flick.

Now that Hollywood got it out of its system, it's almost a relief and it can start to fade away. I've kind of gotten sick of all the hype.

My impression was that this was a curiousity that I could have saved some money on with a rental and I'm feeling that way more and more with a lot of the big budget fare these days where it's worth checking out but the grand slams that make it really worth your while seem to be getting more rare.

(Reply to this)

l t. writes:
on Mar 15 2009 02:25 PM

Watchmen was a great movie until the Bush joke at the end.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Watchmen

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links