Type in any movie or show to find where you can watch it, or type a person's name.

User Reviews for: Watchmen

the_guy_with_the_hat
8/10  4 years ago
Weird. Very weird. I had really mixed feelings when i saw it back in 2009. Now, for the new Watchmen-TV Show i wanted to give it a re-roll.

I never saw the Directors Cut and choose the Ultimate Cut. Besides a Story about a Boy who reads a Comic at a Newspaper Stand, i can say: you need only the Directors Cut.

But regarding the Directors Cut: A lot of the scenes appearing much more 'complete'. You know that feeling when you watch a Directors Cut and you think to yourself 'okay, they cut this for a good reason. This does only make the scene longer not better'. The Watchmen DC was not like this at all. The movie was over in no time.

So I was no big fan after the first screening. And now?
Now the plot works much better for me than back in the days. I still don't like the 'Batman'-Superhero, because is so much more whiny than Batman. Some violence is a little bit out of place, but the acting is great.

And Zack Snyder, man some of his movies are awful. But for this one: He knew his sh*t.

Finally you have to say: It's a great aproach on the whole superhero-Theme and definly a good movie.
Like  -  Dislike  -  20
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
drqshadow
5/10  4 years ago
This may be the most literal film adaptation of a print property we'll ever see, but that alone can't make it half as successful as it could have been. Having grown up with the trade paperback by my bedside, a holy grail of sorts for comic book fanatics, it's almost a religious experience to see these themes, characters and visuals represented so loyally on the big screen. As he did with 300, Zac Snyder has absolutely nailed the look and feel of the comics, breathtakingly, but underneath that dazzling surface is a terrible lack of soul, conviction and character.

With the exception of Jackie Earl Haley, who is absolutely magnificent as the mentally teetering vigilante Rorschach, this is a large collection of miscast characters which never really seem to buy into what they're saying or doing. The words are right, ripped line-for-line from the bubbles and narrative boxes of the comics, and of course everyone looks great, but bland inflections, bad interpretations and a hectic, compressed timeframe strip away the power of the plot's weightiest bits. In a way it's TOO loyal, as it's surprisingly the one major moment that steps away from the guiding hands of the source material - a significant tweak to the story's conclusion - that works the best.

Snyder was ambitious to tackle such a booby-trapped property, and to do so with so passionate a love for its roots is admirable, but there's a reason it was dubbed unfilmable for so many years. There's so much going on at any given moment that even the most familiar reader runs the risk of being bucked, and even at three hours, a large portion of the story is left on the cutting room floor. For Watchmen, those seemingly-dispensible character moments are every bit as important as the heaviest plot developments. A valiant effort, but ultimately a failed one.
Like  -  Dislike  -  20
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
John Chard
/10  5 years ago
The comic book geek blockbuster for adults only.

Watchmen is directed by Zack Snyder and adapted to screenplay by David Hayter and Alex Tse from the Alan Moore/David Gibbons graphic novel. It stars Patrick Wilson, Malin Ackerman, Billy Crudup, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Carla Gugino and Matt Frewer. Music is by Tyler Bates and cinematography by Larry Fong.

1985 and someone is killing all our superheroes. Time for the remaining super heroes to band together - but what they find as they fight the good fight is potential annihilation for everyone.

It was quite a battle getting Watchmen onto the screen, over twenty years of legal wrangling and controversies, it got to the point where fans of the source material doubted it would ever happen - and even if it did it was sure to be a monstrous failure. How pleasing to find that not only did it make it to the screen, but it is also a genre bending winner - well to some of us of course...

One has to take into context just how potent and original the graphic novel was back in 1986/7, we are dealing with very mature themes, superheroes with serious psychological baggage. Alan Moore lit the touch paper in the comic book kingdom that the rest have since followed to keep the torch burning well into the new millennium. Snyder has achieved top line results in getting both the feel and look of the source, even if some or Moore's cunning cynicism has been lost in translation.

Story is set right in the middle of nuclear paranoia and the fear of the Soviets in 85, the America we view is dank and depressing, noirish in vibe (aided by Rorschach's clobber and detective inclinations), it's a world on the road to nowhere. We are also at a time in the alternate world where superheroes are banned from operating, forcing The Watchmen to become vigilantes - that is if they can get along and shunt their psycho discord to one side. The back stories of the main protagonists are fully formed, and these are not jolly characters, so much so you worry the fate of mankind is doomed if these are who we rely on to save us.

There was in no way that Snyder would be able to produce a comic book filmic adaptation that would be as worshipped in that sphere, to rival that of the worship the novel has in its own. However, coming at it as someone who only sought out the source material after seeing the film, it shines bright for newcomers who are ironically seeking darker tints in superhero tales. Oh it has the requisite nifty twists (a clinical mystery to be unearthed), booming visuals, excellent effects work and smartly constructed action set-pieces, but narratively it's moody and calls for the utmost attention on dialogue passages (I have found it gets better on repeat viewings).

Snyder clearly cared about the project and that love is evident in the movie. It was never going to appease all and sundry, but at worst to hardcore Moore fans it's at least an honourable failure, to many others it's a smart and stylishly refreshing genre booster. 8/10
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
msbreviews
/10  4 years ago
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)

First of all, this review is based on the theatrical version of Watchmen. Usually, Director's Cuts or Ultimate Editions are not preferred over the original release. Few films benefit from them, and most are simply an extended cut with a bunch of deleted scenes. It's only fair and rational that a reviewer watches the version which the whole world saw at the theaters at the respective time. With that said, despite knowing the story of the source material, I never indeed read it. Having in mind that most of the "hate" that this Zack Snyder's movie received is from comic-book purists (basically, every book/comic/game/whatever-lover who defends that any cinematic adaptations of any of these sources MUST be 100% the same, with no modifications whatsoever), I'm certain an unbiased perspective is the way to go.

And overall, this is a good feature. Watchmen isn't just another CBM (comic-book movie). It doesn't just follow one hero vs. one villain. It's a whole world (in today's standards, it's really a cinematic universe) of "superheroes" meant to be explored in fine detail (hence the release of a TV show today... reviewing that later). It's an extremely complex world that needs to be thoroughly explained in order to deeply understand how it works, and what's everyone's role in it. This is the film's main problem: it struggles to juggle all of its different storylines and distinct characters. Even with 163min of runtime, it's impossible to squeeze in all of the necessary information.

So, as expected, Snyder and his team of screenwriters had to simplify, shorten, or even wholly dismiss some story elements that would only stretch the runtime to an unfathomable length. Some of the adaptations work brilliantly, but some fail to give a character its importance or offer no interest to a subplot. However, it's still easy to understand everything, and how the ending is going to unravel, which leads me to my second issue with the movie: its final act's heavy exposition.

Like I wrote above, there is a lot of information to deliver. What Snyder did very well was to tell most of it through flashbacks or captivating conversations, but in the final act, where everything was self-explanatory and in no need of more exposition, there is an excess of redundant dialogue that doesn't really add anything relevant. What the characters are saying is significant, yes, but we, as the audience, already know all of that way before the film's climax. It's ironic how they make a joke about villains telling their masterplan to the hero and how this villain isn't dumb enough to do it, but then proceed to carefully explain everything (that we know already) through exposition.

Sincerely, these are the major problems that I have with the movie. However, I love so much about everything else. From the appropriated and fun soundtracks to the beautiful production design, Zack Snyder and his crew really do a fantastic work technically. Snyder's style captures Watchmen's world perfectly. It's one of those films that carry a "feel" due to its stylish cinematography. I love how little CGI is actually applied (I'm obviously ignoring the big blue guy), and the abundance of practical effects and real sets that are used. The action sequences look spectacular, way better than a lot of blockbusters nowadays (10 years later!).

Despite the terrific technical achievements, my main compliment is actually connected to my number one problem. Even though the storylines are incredibly hard to balance, characters like Rorschach, Nite Owl, Silk Spectre, and The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) have extraordinarily captivating and entertaining stories. There might be a few missteps here and there, but Snyder made ONE movie from a material that's worth a whole TV show or at least two films. And he delivered a GOOD one! Probably a better job than 80% of the directors working today could ever achieve. Finally, the social commentary is still quite relevant for this new generation, and if the so-called "source-material-purists" didn't exist, this movie would be a lot more appreciated.

All in all, Watchmen is as good as it could be, having in mind it's just one film with already a long runtime. Its narrative was always going to be extremely difficult to tell in a solid yet compelling manner, and Zack Snyder does struggle with balancing all of the storylines and its characters. However, he and his phenomenal team still delivered a good flick. Technically sublime, with a distinct style, brilliant production design, and gorgeous cinematography. Characters like Rorschach and Nite Owl have amazing moments, filled with excellent action sequences, but also with emotionally powerful scenes. If it could be better? Maybe. If it could be split into two or three movies. As it stands, as one and only film, it's really impressive even with its flaws.

Rating: B
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Wuchak
/10  3 years ago
_**The "Apocalypse Now" of superhero films**_

Based on Alan Moore's graphic novel, 2009's "Watchmen" takes place in an alternative 1985 where Nixon is serving his fifth term and costumed vigilantism is illegal. A former masked crimefighter named The Comedian is murdered, prompting his previous teammates to investigate the crime. Things get complicated as the backstories of most of the Watchmen are revealed and worldwide nuclear war looms.

For some reason I was never interested in the Watchmen and therefore never read the graphic novel, even though I had the opportunity. Why? The fact that it took place in an alternative reality turned me off, as did the peculiarities of the team members which, I later discovered, Moore intended as satire. That said, this is mind-blowing. "Watchmen" is an adult-oriented superhero flick with a convoluted plot, strong characters and total originality. The latter two score high marks with me any day.

Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) stands out with his gravelly voice and right-wing ideology, although he's not very likable. He's impressive yet, at the same time, kind of pathetic. The character was based on Steve Ditko's The Question.

The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) exudes great charisma and is reminiscent of The Punisher, if he were a jokester. Unfortunately, The Comedian's arrogant & hotheaded and has a weakness towards the ladies, not to mention cold-blooded murder.

Night Owl (Patrick Wilson) is another strong character, obviously based on Batman or Blue Beetle. Unlike the previous two he's very likable. I always thought his costume looked really lame in the graphic novel but, as depicted in the film, it kicks axx.

Dr. Manhattan (Greg Plitt), named for the Manhattan Project and based on Captain Atom with a dash of Mr. Fantastic, is an almost God-like being who can do pretty much anything. He's so detached from the human experience that he walks around totally nude and has no time for his woman, Silk Spectre II. He'd rather hang out on Mars -- literally!

Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman) stands out due to her sexy costume more than anything else, not to mention Akerman's drop-dead-gorgeous looks. The character was based on Phantom Lady and Black Canary. Silk can't handle Dr. Manhattan's increasing aloofness and consequently diverts to Night Owl for human warmth.

Silk Spectre (Carla Gugino) is Silk Spectre II's mother and has a pretty significant part. Like her daughter, she's hot, albeit in a whole different way.

Ozzyosbourne, whoops, I mean Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) is the least developed character and loosely based on Charlton Comic's Thunderbolt. He's ultra-smart, ultra-quick and kinda foppish.

Another highlight is the hypnotic score by Tyler Bates mixed with a quality soundtrack (e.g. "The Sound of Silence," "All Along the Watchtower," etc.)

BOTTOM LINE: The film is long, dark, mature, dialogue-driven and convoluted, but the strong characters and originality win the day. No moronic "blockbuster" trash here. Not to mention Silk Spectre II and her mother are extremely easy on the eyes. As far as superhero flicks go, there's really nothing else like "Watchmen." It's even more atypical than the X-Men and easily one of my favorite superhero flicks, maybe even THE favorite. "Watchmen" is like the "Apocalypse Now" of superhero films!

RUNTIME: Theatrical Cut: 162 minutes; Director's Cut: 186 minutes; The Ultimate Cut: 215 minutes

COMPARING CUTS: I own both the theatrical cut and Director's Cut. Although the theatrical version is just fine, the DC is worthwhile for extended dialogue to existing scenes in the theatrical cut; the biggest addition is an attack on Night Owl's Mentor, Hollis Mason, at the hands of a thug gang and Night Owl's subsequent brutal revenge at a bar. Despite the convoluted plot, I had no problem following the story in the theatrical cut, even though I've never read the graphic novel. The filmmakers did an excellent job cutting out the fat in the theatrical version. So don't think you'll need to purchase the DC to understand the story; it's not necessary. My recommendation is to check out the theatrical version first and only purchase the DC if the theatrical cut left you wanting even more, which is what it did for me. Even so, I PREFER the theatrical cut; it's leaner and just all-around better.

GRADE: A
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Back to Top