The Hollywood Reporter puts the wood to Watchmen in this review by Kirk Honeycutt:
As stimulating as it was to see the superhero movie enter the realm of crime fiction in “The Dark Knight,” “Watchmen” enters into a realm that is both nihilistic and campy. The two make odd companions. The film, directed by Zack Snyder (“300″), will test the limits of superhero movie fans. If you’re not already invested in these characters because of the original graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, nothing this movie does is likely to change that predicament.That’s bad news for Warner Bros. and Paramount, which hold domestic and international rights, respectively. Opening weekends everywhere will reflect the huge anticipation of this much-touted, news-making movie. After that, the boxoffice slide could be drastic.
You can read the rest of the review yourself, but it ends with this observation:
“Looks like we have the first real flop of 2009.”
If Honeycutt is right, there will be a lot of disappointed fans. At MRQE.com, there are 121 articles listed in reference to this movie. An enormous amount of interest in this adaptation of the original graphic novel, arguably the most celebrated work in the genre.
More background here. And the trailer with the Smashing Pumpkins song “The Beginning is the End is the Beginning.”
Any Watchmen fans out there? What are your thoughts?
UPDATE: Don’t slit your wrists just yet, ye olde Watchmen fans! The Daily Variety’s review (by Justin Chang) is much better than the Hollywood Reporter:
Finally unleashed from a much-publicized rights dispute between Fox and Warner Bros., “Watchmen” is less a fully realized comicbook epic than a sturdy feat of dramatic compression. Fans of Alan Moore’s landmark graphic novel, concerning a ring of Gotham superheroes brought out of retirement by an impending nuclear threat, will thrill to every pulpy line of dialogue and bloody act of retribution retained in director Zack Snyder’s slavishly faithful adaptation. But auds unfamiliar with Moore’s brilliantly bleak, psychologically subversive fiction may get lost amid all the sinewy exposition and multiple flashbacks. After a victorious opening weekend, the pic’s B.O. future looks promising but uncertain.
“Promising but uncertain” is immeasurably better than “first real flop of 2009.”
What’s interesting is that people see THE WATCHMEN as a traditional superhero story, when in reality the book is an anti-super hero comic, it’s not IRON MAN or the like … so if it remains true to its source (which the director insists he’s trying) there will be a lot of people who don’t know the novel and will definitely be disappointed …
I find some of the trailer selling it like it is, in a way, a comic book movie … but the comic itself innovative for being not the typical comic, far, far from it.
It could be a terrible movie, or it could be a work of art that many folks just don’t get and may flop as a result.
I don’t think people really will know what will happen … I think if he satisfies the fans, that will be enough … and I think the buzz is enough (and being linked to 300 doesn’t hurt) that it will make enough box office to account for those who aren’t fans of the book and are disappointed it’s not IRON MAN …
that’s what I think.
But regardless, the trailer does look cool.
This film looks utterly revolutionary… hence why it probably is in deep trouble, financially.
“Blade Runner,” “Brazil,” “Fight Club.” All genre-bending brilliant films, all generally ignored upon initial release, all given a second life via home video and word around the water cooler.
I’m a moderate fan of the comic, but for some reason, I think this is going to translate really really well to film. Doesn’t hurt to have such a visual witch doctor like Snyder at the helm either.
I’m there, opening weekend, to be sure.
I agree re the trailer. I remember seeing it the first time in theaters about 6 months ago and being blown away. To be honest, I didn’t know a thing about the graphic novel. I’ve been tracking ever since. I’ll be there opening weekend, too.
Watchmen is an amazing graphic novel.
300 is NOT an amazing movie. I turned that fascist piece of crap off after 30 minutes. Just… hated it.
I fear that I will hate this adaptation, but hope I’m wrong.
Having bought the original issues when they came out in 1986/7, I’m an enormous fan of the comic (and Alan Moore’s work in general). However, I’ve always had my doubts about a film adaptation (I still can’t bring myself to watch V for Vendetta – IMHO, a better comic than Watchmen – after hearing about some of the changes that were made).
Then I saw the first Watchmen trailer, and had a real jolt of hope. The characters, look and main story elements of the book seemed to be intact, and everyone involved in the film was tripping over themselves to prove how faithful to the original they were being.
However, thinking about it a bit more, I started to wonder if that might be a negative more than a positive. What made Watchmen so astonishing when it was first published, apart from the depth of the story, was how it pushed the actual comic format more than anything that preceded it; people aren’t exagerrating when they call it ‘the Citizen Kane of comics’.
As a result, there’s a lot of stuff in there that is impossible to translate to another medium, such as the rhythmic and visual effects created within the nine-panel page layout, and the way Jon/Dr Manhattan experiences past, present and future simultaneously while on Mars. Even the typographical depiction of Rorschach’s voice leaves it open for the reader to create their own interpretation.
Elsewhere, the issue that delves into Rorschach’s past (Fearful Symmetry) is structured like a Rorschach blot; work outwards from the central spread, and you’ll find that each page corresponds to its counterpart on the other side in terms of story, characters etc.
So, while I’m excited that one of my favourite works in any medium is getting a classy big-screen treatment, I’m worried that there’s no way the film can be as far ahead of its peers in 2009 as the comic was in 1986. So I think they might be right – viewers outside the book’s core fans might find themselves a bit disappointed after all the hoo-haa.
John Cleese had it right: “I can take the despair. It’s the hope I can’t stand.”