Critic Watch: Watchmen

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave Watchmen a perfect 100 out of 100 score on Megacritic. He touches on the film's symbolism, admitting that even he isn't sure that he understands all of it. He mentions the blockbuster that is the Dark Knight, and how this is another sprout in the comic book genre. He explains that this in an alternate reality where superheroes are real, a collective group named the Watchmen, who overlook human affairs. It's 1985 the U.S. has won in Vietnam, thanks to Mr. Manhattan, Richard Nixon is still president, and superheroes have been banished. Yet, when one of them is killed, the Watchmen reassemble. He mentions that the problem with most superheroes is that they aren't human, but must deal with a human world, which is why Batman's angst is so appealing. In this film, all but one of these superheroes are human with gifts, like superior intelligence or technical skills, and a theme is the exploration of the flawed nature of the characters. Ebert says the movie has a "fearsome beauty" and that he will be seeing it again.

Steven Rea of the Philadelphia Inquirer gave this film a 75 out of 100. He also lauds the movie for its apperance- it is beautiful. He mentions that the director and screenwriter both paid great detail to remaining true to the original graphic novel. In this world where "red" was indeed the scariest of all colors, the film gives a great look into "paranoia-fueled look of heroism gone bad". Rea highlighted the fact that the first couple hours of the movie is great, but there are so many lose ends to tie up that the last 40 minutes was a lot of stereotypical superhero cliches.

Phillip Kennicott of The Wahsington Post gave the movie a 50 out of 100. He spends about half of his review discussing the actual graphic novel, then the other half the movie's attempt to follow it to the letter. He mentions that the lenght of the movie is a draw back; it is very long. The original novel was hailed as literary genius, even making its way onto TIME magazine's list of 100 best English novels since 1923 along such greats as Hemingway and Orwell. It didn't deserve it, acording to Kennicott. And by following it to such a close degree in the movie, the viewer becomes painfully aware of the bad dialogue. He does mention how great the special effects are, however.

Devin Gordon of Newsweek gave the film a 40 out of 100. The main fault for him was the way the director, Zach Snyder, followed the graphic novel detail for detail. He says worshipers of the book will love it, because it is so familiar, but it is not enough to carry the movie. He gives examples of other movies that became wildly successful that were based off of novels- The Godfather and Lord of the Rings. The directors loved those books as well, but realized that where some things work on the page, they won't work on the screen. He says the film feels dated and, although advertised as a visionary, Snyder has not reached that level yet.

David Edelstein of New York Magazine gave the film a 20 out of 100. He says that it is so true to the original comic that it is embalmed. In an attempt to remain true to the comic, Snyder did the exact opposite of what the author did: he did not utilize his tools to the full. The feels extremely dated, with it's Cold War-reminiscent doomsday scenarios. Edelstein mentions that the one group who will be pleased will be the fanboys, because the characters are exactly the same.