I feel like if Watchmen came out right now, it would make so much more money and would have critics and reviewers in awe. I'm surprised it's rated so low for how great this movie is. Deserves at least to be in the above 8/10 range. Ifor I compare Avengers to Watchmen, and Watchmen is a 7.7, Avengerso has to be a 6/10.
shareIt's a very polarizing film. Many people seem either to think it's an underrated masterpiece or pure garbage. You don't get as much of the "It was okay/pretty good." as you do with most films.
I'm with you in that I think its stature has grown since its initial release as people re-evaluate it. I'm not sure if it was a question of it being too unconventional and the general public not realizing that going in or if it was simply ahead of its time. Maybe it's a bit of both. It sort of reminds me of 2001 or Blade Runner in that way. They're both seen as a masterpieces now, but when they were first released reaction was very mixed.
----
A journey into the realm of the obscure: http://saturdayshowcase.blogspot.com/
I think it's just okay, not good or especially bad. It's certainly not quite as bad as Batman Vs Superman. However, as someone who is biased by having read the comic first, I did find the film pretty campy and sometimes annoying to watch. There were things I think it did very well and things that made me want to facepalm but I suppose they balanced out to become just average.
shareOddly, I saw the movie before reading the comic, and was VERY let down by what many consider one of the greatest comics of all time. I think the movie was so good at translating the story to screen, it took most of the experience of the read away from me.
shareSame thing. Maybe it was ahead it its time, so that is why it's so divisive. Maybe it was too much for 2009. Maybe world was not ready for a superhero movie that looks like a superhero movie but in reality turns out to be a psychological drama with superheroes in it.
But Nolan's Batman movies seems to be the same thing yet people love them. I think the problem maybe the fact that Nolan's films were grounded in reality, thus the world of the Dark Knight films seems more real and coherent, while Zack Snyder didn't tried to ground the world of Watchmen. He simply embraced all the fantastical elements from the comic books without trying to ground them. So it's very unusual to see a superhero movie that looks and feels like a generic superhero movie yet it has superbly mature themes and depiction of graphic violence. Maybe critics didn't get it and they thought that it was a pretentious schlock.
Personally, I don't know. I really don't get how critics can praise Avengers movies while criticizing movies such as this. Unlike the Avengers, Watchmen has intellectual integrity and characters with realistic moral dilemmas. Sorry, but Age of Ultron is in no way a better film than this one. Age of Ultron is unfocused and bland. Watchmen has clear direction and definitive approach.
I think you are very right and same thing applies to Man of Steel and Batman v Superman, most of the Zack Snyder movies tbh. I don't know why people expect superhero movies to be surface level, action flick fun movies, that makes you leave the theater smiling and the next week you forget everything, when you can have deep, complex superhero movies, that explores these characters in deep levels, that makes you put the pieces together to see the big picture, that has double or even triple meanings behind most of the lines and scenes and finally that makes you leave the theater not smiling but thinking about what the movie was in whole and the message it is trying to give. Is it because of the laziness of the soceity, or does the society expect these movies to be made in one way(unless they are grounded to reality) or is it because people go to movies to escape reality and not think?
The problem with your line of thinking us that Zack Snyder's films are all surface-level. There's no hidden depths to BvS, MoS, etc. Watchmen has them in spite of Snyder's direction; the film adheres closely to tbe text of the novel, so it has some of the themes by extension. But Snyder seems to be doing his damnedest to smother them in his own personal brand of violence fetishization. His direction goes against the very core themes of the novel he's adapting.
shareby mh-newressistance;
"But Nolan's Batman movies seems to be the same thing yet people love them. I think the problem maybe the fact that Nolan's films were grounded in reality, thus the world of the Dark Knight films seems more real and coherent, while Zack Snyder didn't tried to ground the world of Watchmen"
I think Nolan has a very different style in his Dark Knight movies which no other director can match.
In TDK and TDKR Nolan took parts of the story that don't make sense but made it work by building up a huge emotional response from the audience.
Take TDKR; Bruce Wayne's broken back by some miracle is fixed. He returns to Gotham City somehow and suddenly a huge flaming bat symbol is on bridge? Who put that there? Doesn't matter. Then Batman ends up on the top of a tower on a very tall skyscraper. How did he get there? Again, doesn't matter.
Nolan has gotten the audience to a frenzy by that time so they don't care.
I know some of the things that Nolan is doing (borrowing from "The Crow" for instance) but I'll put that aside for now.
Nolan is a master at controlling the emotions of the audience with a silly script better than any director I've seen.
Snyder by contrast is much more reserved in his style. He has great technique and he just tells the story that he is given.
Snyder enjoys complex stories which are not simple popcorn/family entertainment.
Watchmen has a complicated script. Snyder is fine with doing a straight telling of that.
I like the movie a lot (I rate it 9/10) but I can see how many people hated what Snyder had done.
BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
A 7.6 is an objectively high score for a movie not from the current year. The only reason it's above a 7 is because IMDb fanboys overrate comic book movies in general. Watchmen is not exactly a beloved movie.
shareI was just going to make a similar thread! Perhaps with different wording as I don't think 7.6 is "low", but I'm guessing it IS much lower than how it was rated upon its initial release. RT (which I don't hold in any high regard) has it at 65%, now that is a lot lower than I was expecting seeing how much this was praised when it hit theaters! Everyone loved it. Maybe looking back they realise how much they prefer Marvel blockbusters?
shareShame all Superhero movies aren't Psychological dramas with Superheroes in them.
This film sets the standard to which all others of this genre should aspire.
The hell with anyone who thinks this movie is crap. Personally, I hate and loathe Zack Snyder because of Dawn of the Dead and 300 (though I hate and loathe Michael Bay even more for Transformers) but let's face it, this is a masterpiece. I consider this one of the best films of the 21st century, right up there with Memento and Inception. The poster who compared this to Blade Runner is right on the money -- they share a whole hell of a lot in common.
This movie is ridiculously old school and that's a very good thing. I haven't seen a movie in a theater since the early 2000s, but this is one of the few I would actually pay to watch in such a venue if it ever gets re-released on the big screen.
And Robert Wisden as Richard Nixon? Genius. Pure genius.
Huh it's actually rare that I hear anyone complain about dawn of the dead.
shareI feel like if Watchmen came out right now, it would make so much more money and would have critics and reviewers in awe.You make it sound like it's old. The superhero craze had already started when this came out. share
Probably because of the ending? After two hours or a bit more of watching it I really thought that it will be the best action hero movie I've ever seen.
And then everything collapsed in disappointment. As far as I appreciate that this movie is not a light one and a half hour film for masses, the ideas it stands for are some of the worst I know of. In the end it's just a heavy right wing propaganda trying to convince the watcher that slaughtering everyone is the best way of achieving common peace. The truth is that the only peace that would be achieved by the actions from the last part of the movie would be one lasting for a couple of weeks until everybody realised that the SuperBlueMan is away and now, with the enemies weakened, it's a good opportunity to slaughter everyone with double intensity. If the main idea of peace based upon common enemy would be true, then right now, facing the global terrorism threat the world would be as united as it was never before. And we all know (especially we, Europeans) that our nations haven't been so far apart as now, after terror attacks, as in many many years. This is a common knowledge: when bad times come, everyone starts to trust only themselves, right wing anti-foreign forces gain support and create even more antipathy towards everyone who's not in our own small cicle of trust. Furthermore, I bet that muslim terrorists would like this movie. They also have a similar plan as "the most intelligent man" from this movie - first wipe the world's population out and them set peace on their own terms. And tell me, do now, when everyone is afraid of terrorism acts, newspapers have nothing to write about because we're in a global hippie-like commune, as they suggest near the end? Not so much..
I'm from Poland, I know how a national tragedy (10.04.2010) can unite all forces within the country.. for a couple of days before dividing them as much as never before.
There's also the fact that cities are the places mostly inhabited by liberal pacifist humans, while most of the orthodox fundamentalists live in smaller towns and little villages. In other words blowing up the biggest cities equals raising the percentage of people who are intolerant and are violence sympathizers in overall population.
I could continue, but it's already enough text for a single comment.
by PeaceGuard;
"In the end it's just a heavy right wing propaganda trying to convince the watcher that slaughtering everyone is the best way of achieving common peace."
That is only one way to interpret Watchmen.
- Another reaction to the end is that a vigilante like Ozymandias has too much uncontrolled power.
In fact maybe all superhero vigilantes are a bad idea.
One of them can have a crazy plan that to stop nuclear war where millions have to die.
Who can prevent that crazy idea? No one.
This goes to the fundamental question in the graphic novel (by Alan Moore) and in the film; "Who watches the Watchmen?" or from philosophy; Who watches the guardians?
This problem of who controls those in power goes all the way back to debates by Socrates.
- In the film these issues are wrestled with; who controls Nixon? Who controls the USSR? Who controls the Comedian? Who controls Dr. Manhattan? Who controls Ozymandias?
Bottom line the movie explores this; Are superhero vigilantes a good way to deal with problems in the world?
And the viewer sees that this question is not easy to answer.
Imo at least, BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
the ending was the best part... wtf are you talking about
share