Most critics have apparently not been influenced one whit by all the praise for Watchmen by fans of the graphic novel, something that Michael Phillips acknowledges in his review in the Chicago Tribune. "Zack Snyder's bloated screen adaptation will go over best with fanboys, fangirls, fanmen and fanwomen who give high marks for slavish fidelity to the source material," he writes. Kenneth Turan in the Los Angeles Times calls it "something acceptable but pedestrian, an adaptation that is more a prisoner of its story than the master of it." It's "a bore," writes Philip Kenicott in the Washington Post, it's "long, dull and ... sinks under the weight of its reverence for the original." Claudia Puig in USA Today says that it "starts out powerfully" but as it proceeds, "it grows plodding, convoluted and forgettable." And A.O. Scott in the New York Times concludes that the entire premise of the film "is rooted in a view of human behavior that is fundamentally immature, self-pitying and sentimental." But Kyle Smith in the New York Post is won over. "It transforms each moment into a tableau with great, uncompromising concentration. The effect is an almost airless gloom, but the film is also exhilarating in breadth and depth. There is more going on in the spectacular opening-credits sequence than in the three Spider-Man flicks combined." And Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times awards it four stars, writing, "The film is rich enough to be seen more than once. ... I'm not sure I understood all the nuances and implications, but I am sure I had a powerful experience."
deci mixed at best
si this one by the ugly film freak centrals
"The movie's all about the jerking-off, not the yawning emptiness and self-loathing that immediately follows. It's pretty. And it means nothing to me."-Walter Chaw
bad Chaw, bad chaw, aw !