The 2009 movie directed by Zack Snyder and based upon the book by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons.

< read all 31 reviews

"Watchmen" Review

  • Mar 8, 2009
  • by

Let's just say that I should have stuck with my gut and not have seen this movie. I knew it was going to be bad and it was. A stupid trailer that was better then the first one made me go see this movie and I dragged other people with me including my fiance who had to be up early the next day. What was so terrible about this movie? For one thing the blue dangling penis that happened to be waving for most of the move. I mean really, it should have had a line in the credits because it was one of the the stars apparently.

As far as other aspects of this film are concerned, it was three hours to long and that was the length of the movie. I could have cut it down to an hour and a half and it still would have been to long. There was nothing to care about in this movie. There was no "good guy" or "bad guy". There was way to much useless dialog and far to much useless violence and gore. There was just nothing to make me care. The acting was sub par, the music was bipolar and there was no time of uplift to make you go woohoo! No, just a lot of, "why?" "why did they do that?" "why am I here?" I could go on and on about how bad this movie was and even to those faithful to the novel said it was to much and apparently it was spot on!

The only redeeming things about Watchmen was the really hot sex scene in the owl mobile and the fact that despite all of this films failures, it was damn pretty to look at. That is why I am giving it a 1/5. Otherwise, it might be in the negatives...

What did you think of this review?

Fun to Read
Post a Comment
February 01, 2010
"Watchmen" doesn't claim to be a typical superhero movie. There are no definite "good" and "bad" guys; instead, the "heroes" are portrayed as real people. They do things that they aren't proud of, things that the audience may deem as wrong and immoral. Also, "Watchmen" is a dark, dark film, and no "feel-good" moments were intended. Instead of wondering who are the heroes, and who are the villains, maybe you should re-watch it, and instead ask yourself, "How messed up must humans be to have to rely on these types of superheroes"? Also, the fact that your favorite part was the sex scene brings me to the conclusion that you may have missed the entire point of the film...
February 01, 2010
Trust me, I've had this conversation plenty of times with a lot of people, it just wasn't a good film. The sex scene was well done, but that was also meant as a joke because it's really fun to make fun of this film. I have no desire at all of re-watching a film which focuses on a blue dangling penis for three quarters of the movie. Thanks though :)
November 18, 2009
Agreed. Some reviewers let their fanboy love for Alan Moore get in the way of what this movie really was -- an NC-17 version of a comic book. As I said in my review, if the director was not so insistent to be 100% faithful to the comic, it might have been something cool. I know, I often complain that the original source is butchered but in this case it definitely needed an edit. Your comment regarding the blue organ was hilarious.
November 18, 2009
Scottie, considering that you know little to nothing about Alan Moore, the graphic novel or the director of this film, your pretensions about this are less than amusing. Agreed, the film was intense and extreme in both the areas of violence and sexuality, but it wan intended to be. Did you miss the rating: "Rated R for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language."
You can't go into a movie expecting Spider-Man unless it is Spider-Man. You're trying to say that this film tried to be something other than what it is, which it didn't. Everyone who knew anything about "Watchmen" understood that they were going into the theatres and about to experience something very dark and very challenging. Apparently, some people don't like to be challenged.
November 18, 2009
I knew it would be dark. I even saw some preview footage at my local comics convention. It just didn't do anything for me, sorry. I will reread the graphic novel and do a review on that. Perhaps the original stuff is better than the film. It's been a long time since I've read it. I do like a lot of Alan Moore's stuff, by the way. Promethia was great, just never made into a film, and V for Vendetta is another great example.   I like Frank Miller stuff a lot better. Sin City was excellent.  So yes, there is hope for me. 
November 18, 2009
Yet, your main complaint about this film had to do with the fact that it was too violent and it portrayed women as sex objects. That's all Frank Miller does. "Sin City" was a glorification of violence and sexual exploitation. Moore's stuff is ironic, Miller's not so much. Seems inconsistent to complain about the one and champion the other.
November 18, 2009
OK. I realized that perhaps it's not the writers at all but the way the directors portrayed these films. Sin City has a noir feel to it that I really enjoy -- no I didn't like the whole thing, but on the whole I was entertained -- see my review. Anyway, have no fear. I shall write up a graphic novel review, and whether you like it or not will be up to you. Continue reviewing, soldier!
November 18, 2009
Heck, I liked Dick Tracy, too.
November 18, 2009
I liked that movie despite its silliness. However, "The Spirit" killed any respect that I had for Frank Miller. Now, that was a terrible film.
March 16, 2009
I totally agree with you and once I get over my extreme frustration at spending $10 to see this junk, I'll go about writing a very similar review.
More Watchmen (2009 film) reviews
review by . November 17, 2010
All I know about WATCHMEN I learned from the movies. I'd never read the graphic novel…I'd never heard of it, in fact, until buzz about the movie started. So I cannot comment on the faithfulness to the source, or whether it captures the spirit of the original work.      So for this novice, WATCHMEN was a big, often entertaining, sometimes tedious mish-mash of straight-forward action film, a tongue-in-cheek spin on the superhero genre and a sometimes interesting …
review by . September 25, 2010
If there's one thing that I lament about the film-going experience as I get older, it's that I move further and further away from the boy who used to watch movies with unquestioning wide-eyed amazement.  When I turned thirteen I started looking at film with a slightly more critical and as the years packed on with an increasingly cynical eye.   It's a very rare experience for me to walk into a film without the baggage of 20 odd years of cinema watching experience, comparing …
review by . July 26, 2009
Not being a big follower of the endless slew of comic book conversions, I was refreshingly surprised with how good this film is. Directed by Zack Snyder, who previously made 300, apparently the movie has been stuck in development hell for years with one director after another bailing out, since the original graphic novel is a rich and complex environment that has a Lord of The Rings unfilmability (though of course, Peter Jackson proved everyone one on that one).       There …
Quick Tip by . May 22, 2010
Not a comic book watchin kinda guy but this was a good movie with some depth
Quick Tip by . February 01, 2010
How long has it been since this film came out? Doesn't matter, it's still terrible...
Quick Tip by . November 08, 2009
A comic book movie for adults -- in an alternate reality, Nixon bans heroes as society moves to nuclear war. Will our heroes step in? Dark!
review by . March 31, 2009
Pros: Wow.  Just...whoa.     Cons: Not for everyone, definitely.     The Bottom Line: A movie that takes time to absorb - even a carload of friends may be silent for a bit on the way home before launching into typical after-movie conversation.     I just got home from watching Watchmen.  It is currently 12:07 AM.  The movie began at 9:00 and ended around 11:45 PM, so be ready for a picture that's long and involved.   &nbs …
review by . March 05, 2009
The godlike Dr. Manhattan in
Fanboys rejoice!  Director Zack Snyder, of "300" fame, has faithfully adapted Alan Moore's acclaimed graphic novel "Watchmen" with intensity, style and passion.    The film has a few minor flaws in its narrative, as it crams an epic story into 2 hours and 43 minutes, however the end result will entertain casual moviegoers looking for an action movie with a brain. "Watchmen" revolves around the lives of estranged heroes who have devoted their lives to protecting a world that has …
Quick Tip by . August 20, 2009
There's so many green-screens, so much slow-motion and slavish obedience to the book, that at the end of it all, there's nothing human left.
review by . April 13, 2009
Though it's been deemed unfilmable for years, the acclaimed graphic novel "Watchmen" has finally come to the big screen. I'm not into the camp who felt this movie was unfilmable. It was filmable, the question was whether people would pay to see a superhero film that was as dark as this. Well, through the combined sophisticated efforts of "Spider-Man 2," "The Dark Knight," and "Iron Man" have kicked down Hollywoods prejudice doors to let in "Watchmen." Based off the graphic novel from Alan Moore …
About the reviewer
Julian Brown ()
Hi, my name is Julian Brown. I currently write for The Brotherly Game, a local Philadelphia soccer website where I cover the US Women's National Team and the local WPS Philadelphia Independence. I … more
Consider the Source

Use Trust Points to see how much you can rely on this review.

Your ratings:
rate more to improve this
About this movie


Production Overview

There have been numerous attempts to adapt the superlative graphic novel Watchmen, which was written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, into a feature film. The first serious proposal to do so came in the late 1980s and for a long time director Terry Gilliam (director of Brazil and 12 Monkeys) showed interest in making the film. However, after numerous attempts to create a script, Gilliam was quoted as saying that the graphic novel was too complex and too amorphous for even him to adapt. Later acclaimed director Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream and The Fountain) was reported as a possible director, but this never came into fruition. Initially set to direct the film  was Paul Greengrass (director of The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum). However he was sacked during budget disputes at Paramount Studios, who were at the time meant to release the film. Since then Zack Snyder (director of the remake of Dawn of the Dead and of the film adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel 300) has been assigned the role of director and the film has been moved from Paramount to Warner Bros. Studios.

The film was released on March 6 of 2009.
On July 21 of 2009 the film was released in both theatrical and director's cut editions on DVD.
On November 10 of 2009 the film was released in an Ultimate Edition containing Tales of the Black Freighter animated sequences and linking scenes.

Cast / Crew and ...
view wiki


Director: Zack Snyder
Genre: Action, Crime, Drama, Film-Noir, Sci-Fi, Thriller
Release Date: March 6, 2009
MPAA Rating: R
Screen Writer: David Hayter, Alex Tse
DVD Release Date: July 21, 2009
Runtime: 162 minutes
Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Legendary Pictures
© 2014, LLC All Rights Reserved - Relevant reviews by real people.
Forbidden Planet is part of the Network - Get this on your site
This is you!
Ranked #
Last login
Member since