Watchmen (2009) User Reviews

Not your typical comicbook movie

[tobbe_aik_9 · 8/10 · 4 September 2019]

Christopher Nolan was right. This movie indeed came out too early.

This movie not only shows us the pictures. But also the people behind them. What I love about Watchmen is that it's mature and basic study of how our society is structured. There's so many quotes that can be used in todays world. And with Zack Snyders visuals. It really blends well.

I gotta say. People calling this movie "boring" are the ones watching 4 movies a year. And they're all action heavy blockbusters.

Comments from an Old Guy

[Hitchcoc · 8/10 · 3 November 2009]

This kind of movie is one that I would normally ignore. My tastes don't go to these big budget special effects things, but it was available and I had heard my son talk about it. It took me a while to get the idea. I don't read graphic novels and so I had to educate myself concerning the characters. Over time I began to realize that this is a telling of history as if it had gone a different direction during the Nixon era. The world changed and not for the better. Superheroes who could only help on a limited basis have been kept from their task and retired into relative obscurity. Everything picks up when a character called the Comedian is killed (and that takes some doing). I was really impressed by the world created and by how these figures (who are really multi-dimensional) start to interact. There are both cosmic and societal forces that are linked and the governments of the big countries have no idea what is going on. That includes Nixon and Kissinger who are odd to look at, especially with that putty ski jump nose of Nixon's. All in all, it works very well and has a lot of suspense and a very satisfying conclusion. At first I thought it was way too long, but I soon came to realize that the complexities of the social milieu and the number of characters, as well as the need to use flashback to show us where these people had been in the past, made it necessary. While it is incredibly violent and unsettling, it's worth the effort.

10 years later

[Turanic · 9/10 · 27 December 2020]

Some time after "The Boys" I decided to give this film a rematch... Back in 2009 it was still a time when there was not that many similar to each other superhero films Watchmen cam out a bit too early..., What makes Watchmen feeling so fresh in 2020 is that it's completely different to most of Marvel films.... The characters in Watchmen feel more like real people than idealistic figures you usually get - they age, they change opinions on things, they do wrong things... The world is also much more similar to ours in 2020 that it was in 2009... Brilliant film 9/10!

2023 take

[KOOLAIDBRO · 10/10 · 20 June 2023]

I thought this movie was just OK when it came out in 2009. Now watching it in 2023 I am watching this movie realizing I was an idiot in 2009. I see the Boys and almost every comic movie since in it in 2023. They've all pulled something from Watchmen. Superheroes with real people problems that have real opinions negative and positive doing both good and bad things all the time. It's great and I'm finally seeing what those that got back in 2009 that were way ahead of the curve. Acting, camerawork, effects, costumes, story, nostalgia, all put on full display in this movie. Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Jackie Earle Haley put on a show in a movie that I felt like everyone was exceptional. That's how good they are. Give this another go if you're somehow here reading this debating on whether you should watch this movie.

After 10 years...

[nevesleo · 10/10 · 3 November 2019]

The times did change. After so many super hero movies this one has become the best one of them.

The world wasn't ready for this super hero classic!

[jehu58 · 10/10 · 8 June 2023]

After 14 years I watched this film again. And after all the MCU shenanigans, I gotta say this film is a masterpiece, from the story to the music and the super heroes. The fact that they are vulnerable makes it more interesting.

Like I said in the tittle, the world wasn't ready for this movie, if it had came out in this time it would've blown the front door. The way it was made, special effects, graphic fight scenes, nudity, dark tone and soundtrack, Zack Snyder really knocked it out of the park with this one. This is how every super hero film should be made. Not a blockbuster comedy wanna be.

For a super hero film, a true 10/10 in my book!

My favorite movie ever?

[budmassey · 10/10 · 8 March 2009]

For over 25 years now, I have cited Blade Runner as my favorite movie of all time. After seeing Watchmen, I may have to reconsider.

First, I'm glad I went to see the movie alone. I've heard so many comments focused on a blue dick, or the length of the movie, or some other such nonsense, that I'm sure watching it with someone would have been a constant barrage of commentary and complaint. And no, that's not Javier Bardem.

Yes, the movie is long; nearly three hours. But, unlike the dreadfully insipid Titanic, at the end of this movie I wasn't asking for those three hours of my life back. And, as with all such movies, you must be able to look beyond the literal.

Watchmen is iconic and iconoclastic, deconstructionist and revisionist, laden with allegory and allusion. Consider, for example, the character Ozymandias. I'm wondering how many people who viewed the film ever even heard of Percy Bysshe Shelley's poem by the same name. The character even quotes the poem on a plinth in his Antarctic lair. The allusion is amazing. Here's the full quote;

And on the pedestal these words appear -- "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.'

Clearly one must see the allusion to the work, in this case, of a superhero who hopes to leave mankind a lasting legacy, but realizes in the back of his mind that everything is eventually lost in time. Ozymandias was the first poem I ever examined from an expositional point of view, and I was blown away. The use of it in this movie is equally impactful.

Then there is Dr. Manhattan, named, of course, for the Manhattan Project, which yielded the atomic bomb. His character is an allegory for God, and his relationship with man mirrors the apparent detachment with which God sees suffering in the world He created. The deity reference is reinforced often, and one thinks of Oppenheimer's citation of the Bhagavad-Gita, in which Vishnu takes on a godly form and says, "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

In an expository scene in the second act, Dr. Manhattan has a sort of recollection of his life. His account is dizzyingly elliptical, since he does not see time as linear the way others do. This scene has the lyrical feel of my favorite piece of fiction, Alan Lightman's almost unbearably beautiful Einstein's Dreams, and the reference to Einstein cannot be ignored.

But the real beauty of Watchmen is the moral diversity of its superheroes. Each is flawed in different ways, allowing us to inhabit different ethical perspectives, intellectually at least, and witness their consequences. Everything from Rorshach's refusal to compromise, which makes him a doomed fugitive, to the ultimate compromise envisioned by Ozymandias, who can dispassionately evaluate scenarios where millions of lives are sacrificed, calls into question our most cherished beliefs. Where does it leave you? Well, that's for you to decide.

From a purely entertainment perspective, Watchmen is stunning. The visuals are state of the art, and do not suffer from the sort of mental rejection I have for some movies that present too many special effects to swallow at once as reality. And Watchmen doesn't suffer from Hollywood's apparent fascination with camp in comic book movies. Camp works to some degree in Spiderman, since he's a somewhat humorous character to begin with. But the excess of camp rendered the Fantastic Four sequel unwatchable. Watchman proves that superheroes can use more subtle forms of humor, such as irony, without devolving into camp for cheap laughs.

And the music, oh, the music. If you didn't grow up in the 60's and 70's, you will surely miss some of the impact, but don't worry. Even a second hand recollection of such iconic tunes will suffice. I am reminded of the painfully awful Across the Universe, which couldn't even pull together a decent movie built around the greatest catalog in modern music. Watchmen does it in spades.

I LOL'd, I cried. The people in the theatre applauded at the end. I vowed to wait 24 hours before writing a review to see if my euphoria passed. It hasn't.

We All Watch the Watchmen

[ftyl · 7/10 · 26 February 2009]

Let's get this out of the way - Watchmen the movie is not as good as the graphic novel.

Zack Snyder's Watchmen is not your average graphic novel adaptation. Unlike with 300, which was short and sharp and shallow and easy to adapt, the original Watchmen is incredibly dense and, as written, unfilmable. So Snyder did something very smart - he didn't even try. What he did instead was to take the world of Watchmen and rebuild it in a way which made a virtue of this new medium (film) rather than try to cram the graphic novel into a cinematic form.

Nowhere is this approach more obvious than in the film's title sequence. A wonderfully composed collage of images depicts scenes from the universe of Watchmen in a way which is only possible in the movies. In this way, we are subconsciously introduced to a world where costumed heroes are a part of everyday culture and brought, in a stylish and fluid way, from the original days of the Minutemen to those of the Watchmen. This introduction is cinematically perfect and is indicative of the heights which the Watchmen movie is perfectly capable of achieving but not quite capable of sustaining.

Watchen is a brave film for a major studio to make and without a doubt it would not exist in its present form without the success of 300. It is incredibly dark (both in tone as well as shooting style) with events that would be anathema to any other superhero story. The less you know about the story, the better so there will be no spoilers here but suffice to say Watchmen's version of a happy ending is a far cry from the Hollywood norm.

Snyders brings his unique approach to action to bear on Watchmen, expanding on the action scenes in the comic without making it feel too redundant. His efforts are ably supported by the incredibly game cast, excellent cinematography and near perfect visual effects - this film is incredible to look at but also manages to create an entire world in a way which most superhero stories never do. The attention to detail in even the smallest scenes is commendable and the dense flashback structure means the same attention is paid to the presentation of full and complex characters.

Snyder has made a film which is gorgeous to look at, agreeably violent, well written, wonderfully designed and features some of the best small scale action sequences ever committed to celluloid. But, naturally, not everything is perfect. Most of the performances are excellent, with a cast of relative unknowns who manage to distinguish themselves despite constantly competing with overbearing effects and design. Patrick Wilson, in particular, does great work with a difficult role as Nite Owl, while Jackie Earle Hayley is blistering as Rorschach. Unfortunately in a film which could have done with a strong female presence, neither Carla Gugino nor Malin Ackerman make much of an impression, despite having quite a lot of screen time. Synder's musical cues are another bone of contention - often pushing the tone of the film into the realm of parody. And the ending... well let's just say it cheapens the experience in search of the lowest common denominator and the whole package suffers. On a related note, neither of the stories major revelations are handled that well. These moments were genuinely shocking in the graphic novel but are almost glossed over in the film.

Don't get the wrong impression, Watchmen is a good film, sometimes a great film. Snyder has managed to make a movie which is a terrifically well balanced compromise between accessibility and fidelity. That anyone can sit down in the cinema and experience a distillation of the Watchmen universe in just 163 minutes is a marvel. It does not deliver the depth of feeling and connection of the novel but that is more a matter of the differences in the media than a failure on the part of the film.

On its own merits, Zack Synder's Watchmen is a dark and twisted tale peopled with complex characters whose motivations are not obvious even to themselves. It is a solid film, sometimes rising into the extraordinary, and deserves to be successful. This is not Alan Moore's Watchmen but it is a competent extension of the universe into another medium and a worthy cinema-going experience.

Get in line now......

[Screen-Space · 10/10 · 25 February 2009]

Screened FRebruary 23 for Australian Media.

There's no reason for me to expect I was going to like Watchmen. I knew the cast was interesting - Patrick Wilson has made smart film choices that don't rely on or intentionally subvert his good looks (Hard Candy, Little Children); Jackie Earle Haley was icky in Little Children (and I'm old enough to remember him from Breaking Away); Malin Akerman is cute but 28 Dresses and The Heartbreak Kid do not a superhero make; Jeffery Dean Morgan, Matthew Goode - ??? And director Zack Snyder did cool things with zombies in Dawn Of The Dead and made a wild and wacky movie in 300, which totally indicated his third film was probably going to be worth a look, but...you know, whatever...

So they all signed up for Watchmen - based on a comic bo...sorry, graphic novel...that I'd never read and that was coming to theatres less than a year after Ironman and The Dark Knight had redefined how good superhero movies could (and should, from here on in) aspire to be.

That Watchmen has turned out to be the most complex, exhilarating and deeply-moving fantasy film since Terry Gilliam's Brazil surprises nobody on Earth more than me - and, man, did it surprise.

In equal measure, it is a) an inspired vision of an alternate world that echoes but redefines our own existence; b) a subversive yet bracingly humanistic exploration of the role of the superhero in modern literature, c) a supremely adult take on the fetishistic pull of the heightened existence that life as a saviour of society creates, and d) a wildly exciting adventure story that turns normal people into exaggerated victims of their own creation and then back into mere humans.

An exploration of the plot would reveal more vast themes, but at this early stage of its release I don't want to risk lessening the experience for anyone.

I can reveal this - Billy Crudup as Dr Manhattan and Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach create characters every bit as captivating (and deserving of Oscar recognition) as Heath Ledger's Joker; Malin Akerman makes an entrance to the world of superhero timelessness that will be the fantasy of every teenage boy, aged 15 to 50; and from the flawless art direction, set design and special effects to a mesmerising soundtrack, Watchmen is a film that revels in the perfection of minor details.

Be warned - those expecting Spiderman-like teen-angst or Fantastic Four-like silliness will be stunned, perhaps not quite sure of what they have found. Watchmen is an extraordinarily mature, risky project for Hollywood to role the dice on, especially given similarly-complex explorations of social collapse and vigilantism (V For Vendetta, most specifically) have failed to do blockbuster numbers.

But Watchmen is something special and deserving of analysis and discussion. As bold an attempt at commercial film-making as I can remember, Watchmen is an undeniably unique movie experience - rich, perverse, violent and resonant.

The greatest superhero story ever told.

[toqtaqiya2 · 7/10 · 18 August 2010]

Watchmen turned out to be an engrossing film, one definitely worth seeing. I have to say, I wasn't enthusiastic about watching it at first. It's based on the great graphic novel by Alan Moore. It's widely considered to be the best graphic novel ever. Films adapted form great literary works usually don't turn out well. The film also didn't have a big budget. More money was thrown at making Iron Man (2008) and The Dark Knight (2008), for example. This doesn't matter though because Watchmen surpasses all comic book films in terms of professionalism. Zack Snyder is a good action director. Just watch 300 (2007) for proof. With Watchmen he demonstrated that he is just a good director overall. He works well with actors. The acting in the film is almost universally excellent. Everyone gets to shine. Even Malin Akerman had her moments. Not one character feels like a throwaway. All this is further complimented by the good choices in costumes. No one can deny that the heroes in Watchmen look cool. The CGI is excellent too. Be it Doctor Manhattan or Nite Owl's airship, everything looks just right. Snyder staged some truly impressive dramatic scenes. The use of music is inspired. The score by Tyler Bates is obviously fitting, but the choices in songs may surprise some people. I, however, think that the songs are just right. It was good to hear Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are a-Changing" at the beginning and Leonard Cohen's "First We Take Manhattan" at the end. What made me like the film even more is its cinematography by Larry Fong. The look of each decade was captured perfectly. The 1980s are somewhat dark in the film's alternate reality though. Nuclear war seems close, and society is sick. To all this is added the sweet look that's also present in the graphic novel. There are many images in Watchmen that are memorable, even unforgettable. There are so many interesting details that I couldn't wait to watch the film more than once to pick up what I missed on first viewing. Thankfully, Snyder didn't change the politics and observations of the graphic novel for the film. Some parts are missing but the endeavour is still a thought-provoking two-and-a-half hours. Plus, it has a clear narrative. This is a comic book film for mature audiences. It stands above other comic book films because it's smart and because it tackles some of the most important issues, even mankind's existence. Watchmen was expertly made, there is a lot to like about it. I respect it and I like it more than any other superhero motion picture. It gets a high recommendation from me.

Stays True to the "Big Joke," But This May Confuse Some.

[thebryandavis · 8/10 · 3 March 2009]

Before anyone sees this film, Zach Snyder should be given a pat on the back. He did what a dozen directors struggled to do for twenty years: he made a Watchmen movie. It seems unthinkable that anyone could properly put the greatest graphic novel of all time on the screen. But Snyder has done pretty much that.

While it is not Alan Moore's Watchmen, it is the closest thing that anyone else could have put on the screen. Snyder approached the material with enough reverence that fans of the comic will appreciate the film. As Snyder has openly declared, the final act does include significant changes, but the alterations that take place fit better on the big screen than the original ending would have. It works because it cuts down on a lot of the necessary back story which Snyder could not include.

Even though many pages of the book were not included, Snyder did take the time to try and preserve other information by including short "historical" sequences in the fantastic opening title sequence. By this point, viewers will also have had a chance to appreciate the stellar, and time appropriate, soundtrack. Unlike the hard rock recordings the Snyder chose for the background of 300, Watchmen's background fits the tone and mood of most of the scenes. The only questionable choice was the selection of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah," not because of the recording, but rather its awkward placement. Some may also question Snyder's inclusion of gore not present in the book. While the comic does include it's share of violence, Snyder did overtly change several scenes to be more violent. These changes, while flashy on film, may disturb squeamish moviegoers. However, changes aside, Snyder has captured the essence of the book and packaged it in a beautiful 2 hour and 40 minute delight. Overall, it is a satisfying film experience for someone familiar with the source material.

But this might be a different experience for anyone who does not know the book. There is a lot to digest, and the overwhelming visuals may distract some moviegoers from the bigger picture. The interaction of these unique characters remains an integral point to understanding this film, and when the book was pared down for the movie, the relationships of the masked adventures became a bit more forced. The best part of the comic was the glimpse of what is "beneath the hood," and we have less of that in Snyder's adaptation. Additionally, the ending, while simplified, is still a bit convoluted.

Fans and those previously unfamiliar with Watchmen should go in with an open mind. Snyder has performed what Doctor Manhattan might deem a miracle, so it may take more than one viewing to truly appreciate this unique adaptation.

Interesting first half, disappointing second half

[tokaskoli · 6/10 · 10 November 2020]

I watched it again after ten years because I didn't remember it at all. It is nicely done, it is getting nicely set up through the first half only to end up like any other superhero movie, caricature villain, not convincing at all about the utopia he wants to build. Veidt gets no character development and the actor did not do a good job at all. Silk spectre is also very bad and I found it hard to not cringe most of the times she or Veidt were on screen. Especially after watching the series you can see what the movie could do but instead it's just wasted potential. The movie left you no room to really wonder about the things the way the comic or the series did. Could have been better, should have been better.

very good, even if you've read the book.

[gcj4201987 · 1 March 2009]

I recently saw a free (oh yes) early showing of Watchmen and have to say that it was very good. There have been few movies that I have been this excited for. Some disappointed horribly (Spiderman 3), and some far exceeded my expectations (Dark Knight). This movie falls somewhere in between, leaning closer to exceeded what I thought was going to be a hard book to turn into a movie.

The first half of the film is extremely accurate to the book and very well done. While there are some differences from the book (for example, Dan Dreiberg goes to warn Viedt about the "masked killer", not Rorschach) but almost all of them are excusable and didn't effect the flow of the movie or my ability to enjoy it. Even as far as dialog goes, the movie stays true to the book. Towards the middle, some of the differences begin to effect the film. The best example I can think of is how Dr. Manhattan acts during his live interview (I'll restrain from giving away any scenes). Not only did the course of events change from the book (which I can understand, given there must be some sort of time limit for a film), but some of what he says was pretty much copy and pasted from other scenes in the book. Nevertheless, I was able to oversee these differences and enjoy the film.

The ending of the movie was the biggest change from the book that I noticed. I think they did this for 2 reasons. 1, I had heard that they were going to include an aspect of energy and where we get it into the film, making it more topical. Secondly, I think the ending of the book would have been too out there for most viewers and would have required a lot more explaining (which the book gives) then would have been feasible for the length of the film (it was about 2 and a half hours long).

I think if you have read the book, you will enjoy the movie. You'll probably spend a lot of time making sure the movie stays true to the book (like I did), but then you'll stop and just enjoy it for being a good movie. I think if you haven't read the book, you might enjoy the movie even more. As most readers know, it is unlike any comic book and actually answers the question, what would the world be like with superheroes? We see even the ones we like have dark sides and the ones we don't have the best intentions.

On a closing note, there are some things I would have changed, had I been to art school and had a gazillion dollar budget for a movie of this magnitude. For one, I think making Dr. Manhattan appear nude, while keeping true to the book, takes away from the movie. I heard a lot of snickers whenever you could see his penis, and I even think they may have showed it more than they do in the book (if you've read the book, take note of the scene were Rorschach comes to visit him and Laurie). I think while it was done with good intentions, covering him up would have been acceptable and not have changed anything about the movie. Also, while I really enjoyed 300 and all the fight scenes in it, the style of slowing down a punch or kick and then speeding it up to real time, I felt, didn't work for this movie and sort of made it seem corny. 300 the book is written like a comic book. Watchmen isn't. The fight scenes, as gritty as they were, still felt like I as watching 300 again. Besides these small points, I thought the movie was awesome and I recommend it to reader and non- reader of Watchmen alike.

When is the good part coming?

[rufi-4 · 1/10 · 20 March 2009]

I have never read any comic or graphic novel, yet I have been able to enjoy quite a few movies that were derived from them. This was certainly not the case for Watchmen. Half way through I was left wondering when the good stuff would finally start coming.

Maybe you might have some pre-existing attachment to the characters if you have read the books, but if the movie is all you have, the characters are one-dimensional, dull and unattractive. The Comedian is the only one I loved straight away but he dies within 5 minutes. Rorschach is the next best thing but doesn't get enough focus to really capture my heart. The way he is discarded at the end, made me wonder if really he was of any importance. The strength of his character is too strongly diluted by the bad scenes of the Silk Spectre II and Nite Owl II that continuously interrupt the flow. Silk Spectre II was horrible. She seems to have no emotions whatsoever. All she does is have sex with the guys without too much of a pause between them. The fact that the Comedian is her father might have been expected to give her more depth but hardly seems to faze her. Instead the 5 seconds of poorly acted sobbing followed by immediate reconciliation makes it seem like it's no big deal whatsoever. Nite Owl II is a geek devoid of passion and lacking a backbone. He's the kind of classmate who's name you wouldn't remember after 1 year. Dr. Manhattan serves no purpose other than being the eventual deus ex machina that solves everything, making the efforts of all the other heroes look totally stupid and pedestrian. He's disconnected from the world and is typically not the kind of character a viewer would connect with. The bad guy, Ozzy, gets hardly any background or an explanation why he's both smarter than everyone and able to beat up on the Comedian, Nite Owl II, Rorschach and the Silk Spectre II. Or why he can catch speeding bullets... The movie spends a whole lot of time on flashbacks that take out the whole momentum of the plot. Yet, despite all those flashbacks, it does not manage to make me feel connected to any of the characters. This is the main weakness to me.

The songs were nice individually but many times seemed wrong for the scene. It's one of the first times the soundtrack really bothered me in a movie, which says a lot. The CGI was too obvious and in some cases obnoxious and overdone, giving no serious added value. Of course they were breathtaking at times but they were awful at other times. I was looking for a dark movie with corrupted morals and realistic heroes who are not perfect. Only Rorschach brings this to the movie. Slow motion fight scenes, open-bone fractures and blood splattering around just made me sigh. There was no x-factor in any of this. No Sin City effect, no 300 adrenaline pace, no Dark Knight madness, nothing. Part of the reason why so many of the fight scenes couldn't interest me is because they occur in subplots or suddenly pop up in the main plot unexpected.

As a movie, it failed for me. This says nothing about the graphic novel, which I might one day buy to find out what the characters are really about. They sacrificed momentum and continuity in the main plot to narrate partial backgrounds on too many characters. Often times it's hard to connect your audience to 1 or 2 characters. If you're trying to make them care about 5 or 6 of them, you're bound to fail, especially with mediocre or boring acting. This is why it was probably a hard task to make a movie from this graphic novel.

Watchmen is a fascinating graphic novel adaptation that deserves to be seen by anybody that likes their movies complex, dark, and absorbing.

[stewiefan201 · 10/10 · 14 March 2009]

Watchmen is the long-awaited graphic novel adaptation that has for a long time been deemed un-filmable. There have been many different points over the years where this movie was supposed to be made, which always ended up not happening. But now Watchmen is finally here in all its glory, and it's probably the best adaptation possible of this complex graphic novel. The story takes place in an alternative 1985, with Nixon beginning his third term as president, and the streets of New York are gritty, dark, and violent. Within New York lives a group of costumed heroes that used to be loved by society, but are now hated by practically everybody. One night a depressed retired hero named The Comedian is murdered by a masked person that breaks into his apartment. Another hero named Rorschach, who wears a mask with shifting ink blots, believes that someone is picking off costumed heroes to begin their own agenda of destruction. Rorschach begins investigating and hunting down the person that is responsible for The Comedian's death. Meanwhile we meet another hero who glows blue, and has almost literally become a God. His name is Dr. Manhattan, and although he has the power to save the world he won't do it because he has lost many of his human emotions. The other main costumed heroes are Night Owl and Silk Spectre, who begin to fall in love amid the chaos of their secret lives. Any other attempt to describe the complex plot of this movie would be nearly impossible.

Watchmen was an extremely complex graphic novel filled with a lot of flawed costumed characters, strong plot, powerful sense of style, and also contained a world that seems a little too close to our own. The movie carries every one of these elements in the best way it possibly could. It stays true to the novel, and only changes a few details. The memorable characters are very well portrayed and acted as well. Dr. Manhattan (the giant blue guy) is played very well by Billy Crudup, who manages to keep the character interesting despite his emotionless attitude. Malin Akerman (Silk Spectre II), Patrick Wilson (Night Owl II), and Matthew Goode (Adrian Veidt) are also very good in their roles. However the two actors that truly help add depth and a real sense of anger to the film are Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian, and Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. Rorschach was probably my favorite character because technically he's not really a hero at all. He's a psychopath with harmful and destructive behavior, even though in a way he's trying to do what he believes is right for the world. He is a fascinating character with his shape-shifting mask full of ink blots that mirror his personality.

The movie takes place in 1985 and mimics what was happening back then. Watchmen's story revolves around the threat of nuclear war and global destruction, and the characters mostly try to do the right thing for the world but have trouble seeing the point in doing so. This is a great film that stays true to the original graphic novel while transitioning its style, characters, chain of events, and storyline from page-to-screen the best it possibly could. However if you're not familiar with the source material you may find yourself confused by this movie. It's not like The Dark Knight where everybody that goes to see it knows who Batman and the Joker are. These characters are not as famous as those types of household name characters, and may be hard for someone's whose never read the novel to understand. Personally I only read a few chapters before I saw the movie, and I thought the movie was incredible. I always give a movie props for not taking the easy way out by spoon-feeding everything to the audience. The book, as well as the movie, was daring by taking of the risk of being complex and making you think for a change. Watchmen is a great movie, and despite its long running time of 163 minutes, I never found it boring at all. Watchmen is a fascinating graphic novel adaptation that deserves to be seen by anybody that likes their movies complex, dark, and absorbing.

Best movie I've seen in a long time

[wtxx · 10/10 · 10 March 2009]

Firstly, I have not read the graphic novel. This was deliberate, since I knew there was going to be a movie, and reading any book tends to ruin the movie. I'm sure there are a whole bunch of things in the graphic novel that they left out or changed, and it's hard for those who have read it to imagine how people could understand the subtleties of the story without it. But trust me, the morally complex, multi-layered characters and plot were very well delivered by the movie alone. There was nothing that seemed like it didn't make sense or wasn't quite explained. The movie was just about perfect.

I'm surprised to hear a lot of reviews saying that this is just an action movie for teenage boys; I thought quite the opposite. There was much less action than I expected, the movie centered mostly on emotions and ideas conveyed through dialog, narration and character flashbacks. The action scenes were all fairly short, though when there was action it was delightfully innovative. There were a lot of nasty and unexpected twists like limbs snapping, guts sticking to the ceiling, bones audibly crunching... Every time something violent happened, they made it interesting and shocking rather than recreating the generic ho-hum violence of every other movie. (And there was no obligatory 30-minute-long final action scene culminating in the conclusion of the plot... oh joy! Those get so boring.) Plus, many of the scenes were rather bold for a mainstream film, and showed certain things that are normally hidden off-screen or completely avoided. The only example I feel I can give without spoiling anything is the full frontal male nudity, something that is rather conspicuously hidden in almost every Hollywood movie. This movie isn't concerned about hiding little things like that, just as it isn't concerned about hiding certain subjects that most movies wouldn't show.

This movie definitely isn't for everyone. People expecting another Dark Knight will be disappointed (or, as in my case, thrilled), as this movie is completely unique. People who want an action movie and don't want all that talking and thinking will be disappointed. But to those looking for a long, complicated, deeply moving epic that will really make them think about the very concepts of right, wrong, and heroism (and who haven't read the book, which based on other reviews seems to ruin it): Do NOT miss this movie!

A classic.

[c7flat13 · 9/10 · 25 February 2019]

One of the deepest most sophisticated nuanced super hero movies ever. Production quality is amazing. The story is complex and long but worth the payoff. The acting is great overall. The hero's are vulnerable in so many ways. For every ability they have they suffer from even worse flaws. This is an alternate universe that forks from historical events. Rorschach is my favorite anti hero of all time and the end for me is an emotional powerful climax thats always a gut punch. Soundtrack is spot on. Should have won an Oscar or at least a nomination for any number of categories imo. Genre changing idea as profound and well crafted as the first matrix by comparison. Wouldn't be surprised if the MCU borrowed many ideas from this epic. I have no history with this franchise as a graphic novel and can only judge as a fan of the movie.

A milestone in superhero cinema

[stefanozucchelli · 9/10 · 17 July 2022]

A complex movie with some of the most human characters that i have ever seen and a villain that is also the hero.

Tones a bit dark, almost realistic for a superhero movie but it works.

A Dark Insight into the Superhero World

[Billy_Costigan · 6 March 2009]

Starting off, I am just reviewing the film overall and not taking in account any of the written sources it's based off. Watchmen seems to be a complex film, and I'm sure and extremely hard to make an adaption of. It seems with dealing with material, such as this one, it's almost impossible to please everybody.

Watchmen is a about a team of superheros that look after or "watch" the world around it and society which is supposed to take place in 1985. Be warned: this is not your regular superhero movie. Watchmen seems to reveal a much darker existence and reality into their world, the world of these superheros that we have seen so many times before. This isn't teenage Peter Parker, running and flying through the streets of New York. This is a much darker piece of work including, graphic violence, murder, sex scenes and nudity between these heroes. This film could be described as controversial with all the history, themes and meanings it goes through. It expands through many historical events, such as the Vietnam War and the Nixon Presidency.

The film starts off with a murder and a mystery that surrounds it. (As it is said in the plot.) This side of the story was very interesting and entertaining. It kept my interest going forward, not knowing what to expect. Interesting, and suspenseful with a sort of realism to it. Then the film sort of gradually goes off into more of a fantasy setting, with a whole bunch of outer space, mystical objects, creatures, and end of the world hints. I didn't really care for this side of the story, but it is sort of a fantasy superhero film, based on the graphic novel, so I can't knock it for being what it is supposed to be. What I didn't like, was how long it took to actually discover what was going on with the plot, which turned out to be a bit confusing. There was a bunch of goofy and corny parts, which really wasn't needed or could have been done better. The sex scene for example, seemed kind of forced and awkward.

Now to the characters since its more of a character driven piece anyway. Oscar nominated actor, Jackie Earle Haley, completely stole the show as Rorschach. Every time he wasn't on screen, I just kept waiting for him to come back. I loved his character and his storyline. There's not enough good things I can say about him and his performance. Him alone, makes the film worthwhile, in my opinion. Just what if the others could be as good... Well for Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre II, I can't say she was bad, but not all that great. It seems obvious that she was pretty much put in this film as eye candy, which she definitely succeeds at. Overall, I liked the rest of the cast and thought they did a pretty good job with a few weak moments (mainly Ackerman). Some of the action sequences seem like they could have been done better. Snyder's style made them look "out of synch."

The visual look and feel of the film is well done. The opening credits scene with the song playing is fantastic. The song "Times are a Changin' by Bob Dylan plays in the background as these credits really set the tone and mood for the film. Beautifully done. Not all of the songs seemed to fit though. Some of them seemed really out of place and even awkward at times. Interesting, dark cinematography with some great visuals. Most of the writing and dialog was great, particularly, Rorschach's scenes and lines. Maybe Haley just made it that much better? There is some weak moments as well mostly with Ackerman's lines. Maybe because some of her weak delivery of some of her lines. Don't mean to pick on her, but she seems to be the weak link in this one.

Overall, Watchmen seems like a dense, deep, complex look at the superhero world. It made for an interesting film, that I just had to see because I was so intrigued by the R rating with the dark graphic nature of this kind of superhero film. It's not perfect, and I'm sure some people won't like it, but a pretty good film nonetheless. If you go in looking for an interestingly done story about a new kind of insight to the dark world of superheros then this film should work for you. 6.5-7 out of 10

Biggest letdown of 2009

[brndndei91 · 6/10 · 6 March 2009]

The new Zach Snyder film 100% did not live up to my expectations. Before seeing this film I made sure that I would not compare this move to the graphic novel because I knew that no movie could ever live up to such a predecessor. Based strictly on the film it was only mediocre. I was a fan of Zach Snyder's "300" but that same style just didn't seem to fit into the equation if the "Watchmen" universe. The movie is full of slow motion effects and random fight scenes. Any scenes that were trying to be presented as serious did not pan out well. The acting was horrible with the exception of Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. The story did not flow in movie form and was very out of place and did not leave me craving for more. The biggest problem to me was how unrealistic the movie seemed. I do not intend to compare this movie to "Dark Knight" but that movie set a new standards to superhero movies. "Dark Knight" felt like something like that can happen in real life. "Watchmen" felt unrealistic and simply mediocre. It was like watching a boring slow-motion action film with a lot of frontal male nudity.

6 stars out of 10.

Well worth watching the watchmen

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 28 April 2020]

The graphic novel source material is a masterpiece, bold, uncompromising, subtle, witty, imaginative with very unique characters and an immersive world. Albeit one that is near-unfilmable, with the themes, the huge amount of content and the amount of depth needed, a three hour film sounded nowhere near enough on paper. Plus Zack Snyder is nowhere near close to being a favourite of mine, but saw 'Watchmen' anyway because of my love for the source material, that it looked fantastic and because the cast are very talented.

'Watchmen' really is well worth your time. More the director's cut though than the theatrical release, though both versions have the exact same brilliant qualities. Of which there are many in 'Watchmen'. It is a prime example of how to transcribe a graphic novel to film, while not being as good and not having everything there, and still be near-great on its own terms. It is by far Snyder's best film in my view, as well as being his most mature and ambitious, being the only one to be above good and be more than style over substance. His other films left me mixed to indifferent.

Is 'Watchmen' perfect? No. It does feature one of the most uncomfortable-feeling and pointless love scenes on film, and Leonard Cohen (well certainly for the song in question, it is a great song that is not well used) has never been used more awkwardly in visual media in my view (partly because in my opinion it doesn't fit with the context of the scene).

Matthew Goode is also a bit too stiff and subdued as Ozymandias. Actually do prefer Jeremy Irons' more eccentric and all out portrayal in the recent series, despite the character being a lot less puzzling here. So it is easy to see why 'Watchmen' is a divisive film, though more for its heavy, polarising themes, the huge length (that sounds overlong on paper), that figuring out what's going on admittedly is not easy for anybody who is not familiar with the graphic novel and it seems that the ending has left people divided (the ending in the source material sparks much debate as well).

For all of the flaws mentioned, so much works in 'Watchmen's' favour. It looks amazing for one thing. Very stylish and imaginative with some incredible special effects, there is nowhere near as much gratuitous slow-motion here than seen in some of Snyder's other work. The opening sequence is absolutely amazing in as jaw-dropping a way as you can get, what a way to start a film. The music is nostalgic and atmospheric, with mostly inspired use of great songs. Only the Cohen song in the scene in question is questionable. Snyder's direction is some of his most ambitious and doesn't try to do too much to the same extent as his other films.

Moreover, the script compels, flows naturally and raises interesting ideas that provokes thought, managing not to trivialise its difficult content. A good deal of talk but not too exposition-heavy, even when focused on Dr Manhattan in the middle act. There is not much subtlety here, Snyder and subtlety never belonged in the same sentence, but the ironic wit translates well to film from the graphic novel as does the maturity. The length is a long one, but the source material is massive so the film really needed to be long. If anything, in terms of adapting it would be better a mini-series. The story makes the most of getting one immersed in an authentically rendered world, and thematically it is bold and executed in an unforgivably uncompromising approach as ought. The violence shocks but didn't come over as gratuitous and the action thrills. Didn't have much of a problem with the ending, but can see why others would, the climax is thrillingly staged at least.

A good job is done with the characters, though Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias is underused and a bit underdeveloped. Night Owl and in particular Rorschach being the standouts, though The Comedian is also a difficult role to pull off. Apart from reservations with Goode, the performances are strong. Jackie Earle Haley is perfect casting as Rorschach, and have no qualms with Billy Crudup, Patrick Wilson and Jeffrey Dean Morgan either. The most difficult roles, pulled off beautifully.

Overall, very good and nearly great, with a lot done extremely well with a couple of misgivings. The polarisation is understandable but the appeal is even more so. The recent adaptation, despite getting a lot of over the top hate very prematurely into its run is also worth seeing. It is a slow starter and ends anti-climactically but there is so much brilliant about it, and if one sticks with it if put off by the first couple of episodes it to me and others got a lot better. 8/10

Brilliant movie, but not on par with the graphic novel

[n-s-bondi · 7/10 · 25 February 2012]

Watchmen is one of those films that splits the audience into those who have read the novel before seeing the movie and hated it and those who watched the movie before reading the novel and loved it. To be fair, this is very simplified, seeing as there are people who didn't read the novel and still hated it and of course there's the other way around, but there's still a big mixed opinion.

At first I was very sceptical towards this movie, because I had read the novel and was (of course) absolutely blown away by it like everyone else. When I first watched this movie I was speechless at how great Snyder enacts the intro and the simply breathtaking opening credits while the perfectly fitting "The Times they are A-Changin'" is playing in the background. Even when I'm writing about it now, I still get goosebumps and that's a testament for a great film. I consider this one of the greatest, if not THE greatest opening in a movie of all time. I was thinking to myself that this would just become better and better the longer it plays and would ultimately become one of my all time favorites. Sadly at the end it didn't hold up enough for me.

But first let's take a look at the cast. Here, almost everyone matches perfectly. Either Malin Akerman, Patrick Wilson, Jeffrey Dean Morgan or Billy Crudup, they all do their parts perfectly and look like their counterparts from the novel, but the best one of them all hast to be Jackie Earle Haley. He plays the role of Rorschach so convincingly that you just can't take your eyes off of him. The first time watching I was like "This IS Rorschach". His looks, his monotone voice, just everything about him fits brilliantly. There's only one real miscast in this film and that's Matthew Goode. Don't get me wrong his acting isn't half bad and I guess he's not that bad of an actor in general, but he seemed more like a teacher's pet who just graduated from high school to me and not like the smartest person in the world who can overwhelm Rorschach with his left little finger while catching a bullet with his right hand.

The graphic novel is often considered to be Alan Moore's masterpiece and is even on the list of Time Magazines 100 Greatest Novels of All Time, so if you haven't read it, you can imagine how much depth rests within this work of art. That's the reason why many people to this day consider it to be not screenable, but in my opinion Snyder proved them wrong. I think Eames from Inception said it best: "It's perfectly possible, it's just bloody difficult!", that describes the whole movie for me. It's a great movie in its own right, but it just isn't on par with the source material. For example, they left many supposedly unimportant things out of the movie, which however contribute much to the atmosphere of the comic book, but to give the movie some credit, there are some things that are treated better than in the novel. Like the overall ending in the Antarctic. I really didn't enjoy the rushed paste in the novel, it all seemed a little half assed (If you read the novel, I think you know what I'm talking about.). Here, they altered this part to the better, while still managing to keep the quintessence from the book.

-SPOILER COMING UP- Also, they changed the whole master plan by Ozymandias. I have to say that I don't really know how to feel about this, because on the one hand, it is a really big alteration from the source material, but on the other hand, I know that they couldn't use the "alien-plan", because that would have required to put the back story of the designing of the "alien" into the movie and that, firstly would have been extremely hard to pull off without making it a confusing mess and secondly it would have made the movie too long and that's most certainly also the reason for them leaving out such scenes like the killing of Hollis Mason, the first Rorschach bar scene or every scene of the regular people at the newsstand. -SPOILER OVER-

One thing that I just HAVE to mention, is the Action. Holy f*****g s**t this is motherf*****g awesome. Snyder already proved that he is great in doing action scenes with Dawn of the Dead and 300, but in Watchmen he takes it to a hole new level. You can literally feel every punch and kick, every bullet and hatchet, it's just beautiful. The camera-work is great too, you really feel drawn directly into the action. There's also a lot of slow motion, but never too much for you to get annoyed, or to make the action become ridiculous. It's just some of the greatest action scenes you will ever see in a motion picture and trust me that's no exaggeration.

After this big praise comes a little nitpicking, the soundtrack. I've already mentioned the ingenious use of Bob Dylan in the opening credits above, but then there's tracks like the clumsy use of "99 Luftballons" which came out of nowhere and went out of nowhere and seemed to only fur fill the purpose of getting across to the audience that this movie's set in the 80's, or the almost infamous use of "Hallelujah" by Leonard Cohen during a sex scene. What the hell is up with that?

All in all it was a great movie and I neither find it to be a masterpiece nor a total bomb, but it really is an incredible comic adaptation. Maybe not on the same level as the novel, but that's something very hard to pull off, seeing as how acclaimed it is. You should definitely check it out and find out on which side you're gonna be...

I'll be watching the Watchmen. Over and over again.

[jeehde2 · 9/10 · 25 February 2009]

After months of anticipation, today I was fortunate enough to be able to attend the premiere of Watchmen over here. Together with a friend, who hasn't read the book, we went to Amsterdam this afternoon. Expectations were ridiculously high and I was kinda afraid to leave disappointed, since I wasn't sure how to possibly film the book that people refer to as not filmable.

Zack Snyder appears to have been the right choice to take the job. 300 proved that he has an eye for visuals and knows how to adept a book as faithful to its source as possible, but faithfulness and nice pictures don't necessarily make for a good movie. In order to achieve this he was forced to cut several sub-plots and trim sequences now and then. He made some very smart moves here though, by making up with detail. Every single frame will please fans with in-jokes, or hints at related characters or plots that the unfamiliar moviegoer won't miss. This gives Watchmen the very much needed depth and heart that fans so very much craved for.

The overall story is an exact replica from the book, with every single flashback in place and only 1 noticeable change towards the ending. Much discussed by fans, but I'm sure that only the very worst nitpickers or haters might think badly of this. It works perfectly well, so rest assured, it won't disappoint. The movie begins, like the novel, with the Comedian being killed in a long, tense and action-packed scene that sets the proper mood and makes one long for more, which we get plenty of the next 160 minutes. After this scene comes the brilliant intro montage (with 'The Times They Are A-Changin' in the background), which introduces the Minutemen and helps newcomers to pick up on the story.

Everything that comes after this is in one word overwhelming. Every character is well cast, takes complete hold of your attention and gets the time for a proper and detailed introduction. After watching it, it's hard to tell which hero I liked best. Patrick Wilson is perfect as Dan Dreiberg, Rorschach a joy to watch and you're watching Dr. Manhatting in awe, which makes sense for his character. Also, I'm sure everyone will secretly fall in love with Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman). The suits have been beautifully changed wherever necessary and also have the right effect. The Minutemen look kinda stupid, which is perfect for the superhero parody element of the book. But not only the heroes impress, the fans will have a splendid time recognizing all the smaller characters, such as the news-vendor and the reading kid, or the shrink with his pills.

Although Snyder adapted the book from scene to scene, there are not only passages he had to make shorter, but also those he slightly enhanced. Fights are longer; action sequences leave a bigger impression. He wonderfully uses slow motion effects and fortunately kept the editing at a modest tempo, never resulting in unwatchable quick fights. I heard that the UK rated this 18+, which makes sense given the amount of violence it has. Be it boiling fat thrown over a man or bones broken in the most horrible ways, there's plenty of gore. But the movie also doesn't fall short in nudity. Apart from a short scene involving Malin Akerman, it's Billy Crudup who gets to run around naked showing his digital penis the whole time as Dr. Manhattan. It doesn't distract however, but gives Watchmen something truly adult, very different from the far more gentle 'Knight'.

The special effects are really good, Dr. Manhattan looks awesome, Mars looks like you expect Mars to look and Rorschach's mask remains fun to see from start to finish. Most of the visuals and environments are very colorful and almost drown in atmosphere, a very welcome change from the realism that 'Knight' had. This is simply more fun to watch and impresses a whole lot more. The soundtrack is fun, picking various songs from that period. I'm sure most wouldn't work as well in other movies, but they seem perfectly in place here.

Watchmen is without any doubt the film I was so very much hoping for. A perfect adaptation of the novel is impossible, but this is the closest Snyder could've possibly gotten. His eye for detail will please fans, the visuals are wonderful, the characters intrigue and fortunately he hasn't made any wrong choices concerning the story. The 160 minutes flew by and I can't wait to see this for a second time next week. An astonishing movie that impresses in every way possible. I had a wonderful time.

I won't hold back here by giving this 9.5/10. By the way, my friend who didn't know the book loved it as much as I did.

Watchmen is amazing!!

[speedforce2022 · 7/10 · 11 April 2020]

Zack Snyder did an amazing job with this movie. The cast was great and so was the story. Also this movie has some beautiful shots. Zack Snyder did a fantastic job!

Boring, drab, and too long

[fuzzytheanimalsanchez · 2/10 · 7 March 2009]

At first it was hard to believe this film was two hours and forty minutes long. It felt more like an eternity. The whole first two hours were nothing more that flashback after flashback. By the time the film reached it's so called "climax" you really don't care about the characters any longer. For crying out loud, half the actors looked bored just making it. Too many subplots (most of which come out of nowhere, and go no further). The only people I could suggest watching this movie would be the fans of the original graphic novel. Maybe those people will actually have a clue what was going on. As for the directing I'm not going to comment. I don't know what the film was even supposed to be about, so I'm not sure if Zack Snyder succeeded in "pulling off" the original context. As it is he didn't do it for those of us that never read the material. In summary, the characters are two dimensional, the plot is dizzily boring and confusing at the same time, and by the time you get to the end you don't even care if nuclear war happens or not (I was rooting for merely to destroy the miserable excuse for Nixon).

Just my two cents, your opinion might differ.

-Fuzzy