Ö÷²¥´óÐã

So Mark your not impressed then I take it ?
I'll be seeing it in a week or so .....but already the 'lack of depth' is worrying me ...I've seen 300 and no depth there!

Dear Mark,

You are completely and absolutely right. Watchmen the movie does not work simply because a fanboy was put in charge. What I loved about the comic was the sheer depth of character and ideas that Moore and Gibbons dipped into and literally tore apart the superhero mythos. Snyder with this film as with 300 remianed so damned faithful to the material that it just doesn't work as a movie. The character of Rorschach clearly one of the most interesting characters in teh book completely overshadowed almost. Snyder is one of those guys who believes in the source material so much that he doesn't want to change anything. I would've loved to have seen Terry Gilliam version of this movie as it probably one of the greatest things ever. A friend of mine said after he had seen the film that he might of well have reread the graphic novel again. He would've saved money and would a far more enjoyable experaince with added depth. It is perhaps one of those pointless films like the recent shot for shot horror remakes that add absolutely nothing to the material with absolutely nothing else to say. Pointless. Fanboys should not be placed in charge of movies. Take Spier-Man 3 for example. Sam Raimi was forced to add Venom in the film simply because of fanboy pressure and the result was a complete mess of a movie. V for Vendetta worked because it was "adapted" rather than merely translated and updated for a contemporary audience.

This doesn't worry me about the upcoming Star Trek film from JJ Abrams. While not being a fan myself I am looking forward to this movie. Apparently he was not a fan boy of the original and instead of simply trying to please them he has stated that he has set out to make a film that appeals to all and introduces new audiences to the otherwise slightly nerdy and distancing world of Roddenberry's opus.

I've not seen the film yet but I would disagree with the notion that style over content is necessarily a bad thing. 300 did indeed lack any real depth but its aesthetics alone were enough to make it one of the more enjoyable films I've seen of the last few years. Although I guess coming in under two hours gave it slightly more leeway.

Also, I think fanboys in these instances are definitely part of the problem. Trying to please fans of the original work when adapting to film essentially boils down to keeping as close to the source material as possible, which invariably is a bad choice. Not to mention the fact that the process of switching medium unavoidably changes enough to set the purists off whinging anyway.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

While I didn't actually find the film boring, I generally agree. The major fault was that it was trying too hard to be faithful, and yet by simply quoting verbatim passages from the comic he failed to add any depth or insight to the proceedings. Further to that, it was as if they put in all the most memorable scenes that "had to" be there, but paid no regard as to whether they would work in the context of the film as a stand-alone feature. Hence it jumped from one scene to another with barely any coherence or narrative drive, clearly making no sense to anyone who hadn't read the book.

Funnily enough, while I love the book, I don't think it's perfect. My problem was partly that for the most part it was very deep and exploratory with the characters, then for the last chapter or two it suddenly changed tack and became about a theme that didn't really seem prevalent in the rest of the book. With the film I was the other way round, and thought that it didn't work at all for the first hour or so, then towards the end, as it became more plot drive, it became more entertaining. I heard some people who obviously weren't aware of the book talking on the way out saying 'there was no plot until the last 20 minutes', which I think is an exaggeration but essentially correct. I've read the book twice and even I kept wondering where the film was going and forgetting that the story was meant to be about who killed the comedian and the threat of nuclear war. In the book that's fine as you take a long time to read it and it's split into very episodic chapters, but in a film it just falls flat.

I also thought the violence which brought it up to an 18 was un-necessary, I'm sure it was more over-the-top than the book and seemed pointless, as if it was trying to get an adult rating to appear mature. The book was dark and disturbing without having to resort to such blatant gore.

Perfect review. You spoke the very words that were in my mind when watching Watchmen.

Zack is more concerned with the camera being at the precise angle that the frames were drawn at than what the characters in those frames are saying and feeling.

Unfortunately, for once the studios were right, Watchmen is unfilmable.

I though the film was fantastic, it was an adaptation of the graphic novel, it took the graphic novel and put on screen but did change some of it to make it it's own creature. It has also redeemed Zack Snyder after the fascist "300" and the Times they are changin' opening was hilarious.

On another note, I agree that if Terry Gilliam had directed it, it would have been a much better and even darker film.

Im writing this comment up here purely because its the most recent post and this isn't related to this video.

Gran Torino is excellent. I enjoyed it immensely and I'm a big Eastwood fan. However, I'd like to hear a more in-depth review of it from Mark. I felt that at times the dialogue was awful, and the on-screen performances from many of the supporting cast was terrible. The scene where Thao talks to the construction boss is awful. Its kind of the pay-off to a joke, so I laughed, but it seemed so staged and cringey.

Another thing I picked up on, completely seperate to the production, was the ghastly response the film got in my cinema. When clearly the racist wisecracks were in the movie to serve a purpose, the audience laughed away as if it was a Jim Davidson stand up show. It raised serious questions about the intellect of the 'standard' cinema-goer. Is it futile to make movies as works of art, when your audience is only interested in purile crap and explosions? I really hope not.

i read v for vendetta for the first time recently, and although i loved the film, i never gave the wachowskis much credit for what they did for the film, but they really took all the key concepts of the novel and mixed in their own ideas and spins on it, i mean there's huge plot points which work fantastically that aren't anywhere in the novel. i enjoyed watchmen, but i think it just lives totally in the shadow of its source material, rather than working as its own entity.

Spot on review Dr. K.
I probably found the film to be more awful than you did. But yes, I fully agree, it was way too long, boring, portenteous, narratively all over the place. I also found the acting extremely weak, the tone was uneven and the use of music unimaginative.

However I wouldn't be as hard on Snyder as I would normally be.

It seemed like he was too preoccupied with staying faithful to the surfaces of the source material, that he forgot to consider whether watchmen worked as an actual film.

So it is ironic that, yes in some ways he was brave in recreating the surfaces of the comic book, but wasn't brave enough to break away from the structure of the source material, which doesn't really lend itself to an easy adaptation to the big screen.

So in some ways it was an uphill struggle from the start for Snyder. Although Gilliam, and more likely Greengrass, would have made a better film, I'm still not convinced that their attempts would have been entirely satisfying.

Moore was probably right, they should have left it alone.

Mark, unrelated but disturbing, you MUST read this:



It seems your beloved William Freidkin is mucking about with his great works in a most misguided way, and apparently The Exorcist is on the list - have a word will you?
Cheers, Phillip Reeves

I now know why it was call Watchmen - I kept looking at mine.

^ boom boom!

it's frustrating because all these people who say that watchmen is unfilmable are wrong, i mean, it's a story that stays mostly out of people's heads and there's a lot of stuff physically going on in it. it's not like catcher in the rye where everything is based around what holden is thinking. it's really just a lack of invention on snyder's part that's the issue, but now, that's the watchmen film, and we're never gonna get another one, and that depresses me. the potential was so great.

300 lacked any depth of any kind...
But in that film it didn't matter, it was a visually exotic action flick which foretold the epic tale of how swords and muscles = blood and mutilation...
Watchmen however, well as you said about Sweeney Todd; I won't acknowledge a word said against it... I thought it was great!

HI, DR KERMODE.

THIS QUITE SIMPLY IS THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE.

NO STORY (WELL IF THERE IS ONE IT'S TOTALY INCOMPREHENSABLE)!!!!!!!!!!

THE SCRIPT IS THE WORST I'VE EVER HEARD!!!!!!!!!!

THE CHARACTERS ARE THE MOST BORING CHARACTERS I'VE EVER SEEN.

IT'S MUSCH TO LONG.

ANYONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THIS LOAD OF GARBAGE IS BETTER THAN ME!!!!!!!!!!

ZACK SNYDER GO AND HIDE UNDER A ROCK FOREVER.

Hi mark great job with the site here, there's one question that has always been bugging me and one i think you might be able to answer, when is the devils going to see an uncut release on dvd. its a crying shame that this classic is so misunderstood.

If y'all care for an EVEN longer, and let's face it, far more STUNNING review of Watchmen, head to



And listen to series 2, episode 8 (featuring moi).

S'only a little university radio show (which I appear on despite not being at the university) but ENJOY!

PS - If the link doesn't work...and you still care enough to look, the Facebook group is called "Your Opinion Is Worthless".

Quite the 'film-studenty' name for a radio show.

My money's on Uwe Boll directing Watchmen II in 2010.

I have to say that Mark's comment "depth" (or lack of) in Watchmen astounds me. To have the contemptuously bland and commercialised disney bubblegum film that is High School Musical elevated to an almost classic status with not one single comment to its depth is almost laughable.

However, Zack Snyder is NOT a great director. In fact, he basically took the comic, trimmed a few edges and put it out almost verbatim. So criticism is due for sure. To be perfectly honest, i knew full well that he wasn't going to like this film. I generally find Marks reviews to be pithy and entertaining, but increasingly he will take it upon himself to have a bug bear over a film because of an actor, atress or director. I think watchmen was one of those predetermined moments becuase of Snyders previous cinematic attempts.

I thought watchmen was entertaining, but overblown. Stylistically it captured a powerful essence of 80's paranoia with a good schlock of comic nostalgia. I persoanlly dont think it could have been filmed any better. Better than the graphic novel? No way. Should it have even have been made. Of course!!

I saw 'Watchmen' last night and my general feeling is one of relief...

I've been an Alan Moore fan for years and so was wary of this adaptation, especially as it was directed by the guy who gave us '300', which I hated.

Nobody seems to have a good word to say about this film but I thought it exceeded expectations. It never was going to capture the subtleties and intricate layering of the book but at least it's not another 'Fantastic Four' embarrasment.

There's much to celebrate here. It's a faithful adaption, it retains a lot of the detailing and the wordplay and the imagery. It's not been ruined by A-list stars, it's not been made for kids, it isn't there to sell cereal, it didn't bore me at any point, it does have some intelligence and craftsmanship behind it...so yeah....I liked it, I enjoyed it.

Hi Mark, Regarding last week's review podcast. I really loved what you said about the Young Victoria film. About her being a good role model, and that young women should definitely go to see it. You really struck a chord with me. I myself have a 3 year old daughter, and I constantly despair about the so-called role models that young girls seem to look up to these days.

As well as my daughter I also have a couple of nieces who would both be the right age to watch Young Victoria, and I am hoping to take them to see it sometime soon. Many thanks indeed!

The true sign of how awful the Watchmen film is having My Chemical Romance on the soundtrack absolutely butcher Desolation Row

Dear Maestro Kermode



I was most interested to hear your review of WATCHMEN and, IMHO, I have to say it was a mess. A great big mess. A great big unfocussed and wondrously beautiful mess that captured my heart. I’ll try and explain why.

I agree that it’s long, even overlong at times, to the point where you have to stay on your toes to keep track of what’s going on, something the film doesn’t make easy for the viewer to do. But what’s the problem with that? People are forever bitching about how movies are dumbed-down this and dumbed-down that and how they want more from them. For those people, I say here’s your film!

The dumbing-down of most films these days takes me to another reason why I’m taken with this film (flaws and all): again, it’s by no means perfect, but it had a sense of scope and ambition to it that many films today conspicuously lack, whilst being aimed firmly at adults. That’s praiseworthy in my book, since any film made these days with the budget WATCHMEN had would almost certainly require it be aimed at kids. I definitely thought it courageous that Warner Brothers and Paramount spent big on the film and I hope their courage will be handsomely rewarded – who knows, if it’s a hit then, who knows, perhaps the powers that be just might decide to put big money behind something equally risky. How bad a thing can that be?

PS HUSH sucked like an Electrolux.

Watchmen! What a great reason to ban all forms of drugs, alcohol, Red Bull even. Why? It seems that the planet and the people who live in it are just the very people Watchmen is pointing out.

Tarantino will be wondering now if anybody actually understood his opus, Pulp Fiction, since the consensus seems to be that Watchmen is unwatchable!

Well, I've not read the book nor had any high hopes for this film. I mean, the director shot 300 for crying out loud. The racist, fascist propaganda that twinkled toed to the cinemas, with audiences going Ooohhh, Aaaahhhh, WOW even.

Now let's get this straight. I am still not sure if Zack intended the way the film has worked out. His track record is dubious, and maybe Mark K just does not like the fellow. I do think Mark K has possibly made the worst case for a film review and done himself in. Which is a shame since he seems to know what he is talking about. Seems is the big word here. His review completely hovers over the actual reasoning for this film to exist, especially in today’s world. Zack has taken us to an alternate world, but then cleverly makes that alternate world, the one we actually live in today. A world full of corruption, vile politics, that rejoice in the suffering of others, a world that as Zack has depicted in the film, a world that has stopped caring. I'll go into that in a moment.

Alan Moore, he does not like Hollywood and all its trappings. He is a writer after all, and how dare anyone try and do something else with his source material. How dare they! How dare they indeed....

Zack has dared, and has managed to make a film that is not messy as people out there seem to make out. It all works without any fuss. Zack has tamed down the violence and his direction is simplified in this outing. It does not seem long and the plot works right from the opening scene of the film. He has managed to make an entertaining adult film about the woes of the world we live in today, using the alternate world created by Alan Moore, who used it as a fogging mechanism to delude us, rather than face up to reality. Alternate universe? I don’t think so mate. Just because you can stick an octopus at the end of the book does not make it an alternate universe. Barmy drugged up writing is no reason to hide behind a curtain of deceit.

So what has Mr. Zack delivered? He notion is clear from the start, that politics is frayed at the edges, and the US has got too powerful for its own good. It has the big gun to destroy all, or rather big blue in this case, policing the world as it sees fit. Watchmen is more akin to the role the US currently plays. In a damning world, it's role is played out to its very own people. Using smoking mirrors and underhand ninja-esque techniques it contrives situations to fool its people. The people need to be saved from themselves. As corny as it sounds, by reading the comments posted here it is just so perfect. People are becoming more and more like sheep to slaughter, and watchmen is putting that up to your face. Here it is, eat it. The references to the twin towers in the film, which is recurring, and the final embers of the film, show us ground zero, the new one made in the alternate universe, this world, with the twin towers gaping at the big hole. The announcement that Reagan is heading up the new political campaign, tells us that the real cold war is about to begin, that’s when the US and USSR were about to play pong, Nuke style. The film tells us that we are always in danger, and the danger never goes away, superheroes or no superheroes, alternative universe or otherwise, mankind is destined to blow itself up any which way it pleases, and this is where this film triumphs big time. Its a reflective insight into the world we live in today, the people who live on it, and about the mentality of the people who are on it, and the future that looms for them. Zack brings the film into the contemporary age and asks us that sometimes if people who have to do things in the greater interest, should they then not do it? Bring down the twin towers ourselves in a Machiavellian plot and then go after Osama for example? Let the world unite against the invisible common foe.

Get over it. It is easy to understand, and you know what the plot and message of this film is. Grow up!

Firstly, I think V for Vendetta does hold together well as a movie, but it's also rather terrible.
I loved reading The Watchemn graphic novel a few years ago, I'm always enthralled by something if I can't predict what the hell is coming next, that was part of the novel's allure, that it was such an enigma. That's also why The Watchmen is one of the best books I've ever read.

I thought the choices made in the film's making made the end product a non-match for what I had in my head, and you can't help having these movie ideas in your head when reaidng it because the graphic novel is so cinematic in of itself - therefore very easy to direct probably. But I didn't like Snyder's choice of cast; A) Veidt's character/ actor in the film was too young B) actors for the nite owl and spectre were adequate C) I had imagined the comedian as more of an older gruffer eastwood body builder type D) I actually can't think of a better actor they could have got to play Rorschach - Jackie Earle Haley - and I've glad they kept the small napoleonic stature of rorschach in the film - impressing his survivalist nature even more upon the viewer. Finally i didn't like the soundtrack, though some songs fromthe book included, why was there a batman-esque smashing pumpkins track and a muse track included!!!

I love Alan Clarke's work, and at times he has bordered upon genius. But I found the whole 'I'm gonna take my name of every movie adaptation made' rather ridiculous (including exempting himself from royalties). Clarke just hates Frank Miller's work and that's why he hates 300. But I would have thought when it came to adapting watchmen to screen it would take a director to make a rather arthaus approach mixing that of Leone, Tarkovsky and Tarantino, all of which Zack Snyder hasn't demonstrated. Though i do like some shots, including those of the comedian (e.g. in teh bar) but again, these are just lifted from the graphic novel itself demanding no ingenuity really.

So what we result in is A) a Zack Snyder movie B) trying to ascribe itself to a mainstream arthaus movie combing Batman Forever and The Dark Knight, but C) lacking conviction to add depth to the noir-esque dark knight aesthetic.

This will however, probably be the best adaptation of the Watchmen I'll ever see. I can't really say Gilliam's would have been much better. But why not a 4 hour film? or a film in two parts ala CHE 1 + 2 or KILL BILL VOL 1 + 2? I'd say it was probably all about money.