Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Harry here - Have you read Roger Ebert's WATCHMEN Review? Sigh... Now with his second write up!

Hey folks, Harry here... I don't know how geeky each of you may or may not be, but here's how geeky I feel today. Now, a whole bunch of us have been following the development of this property, since it first became available. Tracking the rumors in Starlog, WIZARD and the endless other mags at the time. And at every turn of the development dream, I always wanted to read what Ebert would say. I'm proud that I have been able to call Roger my friend. But it was upon reading his review of WATCHMEN tonight that I just felt I had to share with all of you. Because it's at times like these, when you read and see the film through his eyes and his ability to put that experience down for us to experience. Well, I absolute treasure his review, like I have so many others. But this one is quite the doozy!

Give Rog at read!!!

Here's the second piece that Roger wrote - I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote a third.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 6, 2009, 5:09 a.m. CST


    by NJAW-08


  • March 6, 2009, 5:10 a.m. CST


    by NJAW-08

    Roger Ebert watchmen review FTW

  • March 6, 2009, 5:10 a.m. CST

    The man can definately write a review

    by Spifftacular Squirrel Girl

    All I have to do is wait a little longer and I'll finally get to form my own opinion of this film and reading that review has me very excited.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:13 a.m. CST

    "Watchmen" might become the "Blade Runner" of my generation.

    by Evangelion217

    The only difference is that Roger Ebert gave "Watchmen" a rave review. Thank you Roger. :)

  • March 6, 2009, 5:14 a.m. CST

    Even Ebert gotta talk about that blue junk

    by BrainFart

  • March 6, 2009, 5:15 a.m. CST

    Great review, glad he liked it...

    by sonnyfern

    Should give the movie some serious cred!

  • March 6, 2009, 5:22 a.m. CST

    roger did the right thing

    by bacci40

    he judged the movie on its own merits<P> he then went back to watch it on imax, and wrote his perceptions of the film's philosophy<p> way too many of the critics compared the film to the book...this may be zack's fault, as he tried his best to stick to the source material...but as film and comics are different medium, it wasnt fair to zack<P> however, and i hate to say this, the suits may be right, at least when it comes to this work, for im getting a vibe from many of the gen audience, that they were not, nor will ever be ready for this sort of film<P> when millions look at tdk as the pinacle of comic book films (and that includes many critics) there is no place for watchmen

  • March 6, 2009, 5:25 a.m. CST

    I just watched the Watchmen.

    by Breotan

    My review: The actors brought the human condition to life in this greek tragedy but Hollywood values diminished the ending just enough for that to be the real tragedy. No, I'm not talking about the (lack of) squid either. It's the little things they changed during the climax that made me feel that way.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:25 a.m. CST

    I love Rog, too, but....

    by The Tao of Joe

    His "Watchmen" review reads like a man trying to say something nice so a fanboy e-mob doesn't flame his website. How do I know this? Because he's doing what he has said people shouldn't do when they're writing reviews: He's writing a list. A list of reasons why he likes "Watchmen" as opposed to a cohesive essay that works as a whole piece of criticism. I write similar pieces when I review children's plays for my local paper. And by concluding with the 'See this film -- twice' sort of statement, I must say this is one of the worst reviews Ebert has ever written. Why would he allow something like this to fly out of his keyboard? After the way so many critics were manhandled for giving less than perfect reviews of "The Dark Knight" (even a buddy of mine who gave TDK 4.5 out of 5 stars had someone make a t-shirt with my friend's face on the front proclaiming him 'douche of the week'), there are quite a few critics who are struggling to find something nice to say about this piecemeal, uneven film. Well I am going to tell you guys right now, I saw the film on Tuesday and it was no better than a sub-par TV adaptation of a Stephen King novel. Sure there was something of budget, boobies, and a big floppy blue ding dong, but the movie is chock full of meaningless winks and nods, horrible song choices (does Snyder listen to music that WASN'T in a movie before), and worse, changes to the characters' reaction to the finale which greatly compromise the thematic brilliance of the original text. I get more in detail here on my blog for those who are interested: . Snyder's Watchmen was everything that Alan Moore said it would be. And no blow jobbing review from net critics who got junketed, nor print reviewers afraid of the fanboy community can scrub this fact.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:26 a.m. CST

    Is watchmen...

    by oaser

    Just a movie ahead of its time? I agree with with Evangelion...this will become the next Blade Runner.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:29 a.m. CST

    Great review


    In fact, better than anything I have ever read on this site. So why do I come here? Erm... oh I know. Ebert's site doesn't have the hilarious talkbacks to lighten up my day.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:30 a.m. CST


    by BlackJesus

    Ebert is the the last of the great critics. After him the world will be forced to read critiques from bloggers and so called film experts who don't really understand the medium of film. Just because you watch a bunch of movies and listen to a bunch of commentaries on the special edition dvd does not make you a critic. Ebert is sorely missed.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:31 a.m. CST


    by The Tao of Joe

    I am with you man. Hollywood can keep the squid. It's the character's reactions that piss me off. Change the reactions, and then you've changed the characters. They take the best line of the entire book and give it to another character in a completely meaningless context (if you don't know which line I am talking about, read the Pulitzer-winning "The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao" to find out, that book does for fanboys what Citizen Kane did for sleds), Then they use Night Owl as a vessel to grab Ozymandias by the scruff and say "No, Ozymandias! Bad! Bad!" By changing the characters, they really invalidated their reasons for adapting the book in the first place. Should have did what Heroes did and just rip off certain plot points and call it something else.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:31 a.m. CST


    by BlackJesus

    Ebert is a perfect example of someone who is well educated and can actually write a review...NOT a play by play description of the ENTIRE film. A synopsis is not a review.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:32 a.m. CST

    just saw it

    by slappy jones

    its good.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:32 a.m. CST

    Damn Joe...

    by The Mothman

    Sounds like a letdown, when all the love had my hopes up. Still, I won't rant and rave at your pessimism. People who are willing to go against the flow are the only critics I trust any more. Ever since Ebert gave Batman Begins 4 stars (worthy of about 2 imo) I've read him more out of habit than reliability. Haven't seen Dark Knight yet, but the people who didn't give it A-grades like your friend always seemed to have the more reasoned arguments, as opposed to the standard 'best movie ever' hyperbole. Hopefully Watchmen will be, well, watchable. It's the sort of project where getting 3/4 of it right probably isn't a bad effort.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:35 a.m. CST

    Glad he liked it. Not sure he *got* it though.

    by V'Shael

    I mean, he mentions that he's not even sure if Manhattan created that object on Mars, or discovered it. <p> I can't quite understand what sort of mind can look at that scene and not get that he's creating it. <p> I mean, sure, in the book it's more obvious. They focus on the watchmaking, etc. But that's in the movie too. <p> And his references to the "superheroes" as gods, instead of what they are : costumed vigilantes with no powers. Maybe that's influenced by the directors fucked up insistance on having superhuman cartoony fight-scenes. ("because they're *cool*) Who knows.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:36 a.m. CST

    Fanboys, stop being a cheap date!

    by The Tao of Joe

    Just because Hollywood is tossing a half-eaten Big Mac at us this weekend doesn't mean we should get in the back seat of their car, let them have their way with us, then say it was a good experience afterwards.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:36 a.m. CST


    by antonphd

    This film was amazing.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:37 a.m. CST

    Saw the midnight showing.....

    by DrunkyMcLush

    ..and I feel like I just had a 3 hour long orgasm...

  • March 6, 2009, 5:38 a.m. CST


    by the1980mutant

    It was fun, it was gory, it was beautiful. Alan Moore isn't happy with it, but goddamn it was very good. How much more do you people want? Who here complainingt has ever directed a movie? I can't say I have. And if I did I would credit this to anybody's list. To comic fans this was a feel-good look-hollywood-can't rape-everything-sort of-film. Give it a break. it was AWESOME. in this day and age purity is gone. If everyone is this conservative about their films, nothing will ever be made. All this talk back is gonna ensure is that experimental films like this won't be made again, especially by a major studio. JESUS CHRIST, what do you people want>>>>>

  • March 6, 2009, 5:41 a.m. CST

    WTF?! He... LIKED it?

    by ricarleite

    How? Alan Moore must be eating his Lulu comics in rage, now!

  • March 6, 2009, 5:42 a.m. CST

    Alan Moore is a pretentious prick.

    by FookU

    He's written some great comics but that doesn't make him any less of a douchebag.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:43 a.m. CST

    The 1980mutant

    by The Tao of Joe

    I have never directed a film, but I have written a few, and "Watchmen" was a case of bad storytelling plain and simple. What did I want? I detailed this in my review: "[I]t was not my intention to see a film that took every moment, character, or detail from the book and convert it shot-for-shot into film like Sin City or 300. Nor was it really my intention to see a great film. What I was really looking for was a movie someone could show to Moore - who famously called his book unfilmable and refused to have anything to do with this movie - and say, 'See, that wasn't so bad, was it? Guess that means your beloved book wasn't so 'unfilmable' after all, right?' That's what I was looking for, but now that I have seen the film, all I can say is that Moore was right all along."

  • March 6, 2009, 5:45 a.m. CST

    The Tao of Joe

    by Evangelion217

    Your an idiot. The fact is that Roger loved this film, and that's why he gave it 4 stars. Face the facts.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:46 a.m. CST

    The Watchmen: "The My Dinner With Andre" Of Comic Books

    by Media Messiah

    I was bored with The Watchmen, the self important comic book series/graphic novel. The X-Men, The New Teen Titans, The Legion of Super Heroes, and Heavy Metal Magazine of the early 80s were far superior in story and tone than The Watchmen, Alan Moore's Ralph Bakshi-ization of the team super hero comic book genre, but the book just sits there in endless chatter, like "My Dinner With Andre" turned comic book super hero gab-fest. What should have taken half the trek, to resolve the story arc, continued far and away...beyond the limits of reasonable story plotting...and into a tale that seemed to have been piloted by a sufferer of OCD...Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. This book, The Watchmen, is Alan Moore's answer to his on therapist's Rorschach Test, and the answer is merely him throwing up a mirror to reflect back society on itself, by way of a comic book. Yes, The Watchmen is just us eavesdropping on a mental therapy session between a psychiatrist and his patient, and I suspect that Alan Moore may be playing both roles in his odd mental experiment...put to paper, as a comic book--the journal of a insane...but banal...genius. <BR><BR>I loved "My Dinner With Andre", don't get me wrong, but I recognize it for what it was/is, a multi-course dinner conversation...set to film...and if this movie version of The Watchmen is anything like the comic book, it will be My Dinner With Andre...with flowing capes, masks, colorful costumes, and an over abundance of conversation that should have ended 45 minutes before its final.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:47 a.m. CST

    I don't think "Watchmen" is ahead of it's time.......

    by Evangelion217

    But it is a polarizing work of art, that pulls no punches. And I think the extended cuts might even make this film alot better. Infact, I think if WB released the extended cut instead of this theatrical cut, it would of gotten more positive reviews. Probably raves throughout.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:48 a.m. CST

    Tao of Joe is just butthurt because there's no squid.

    by FookU

    Admit it.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:48 a.m. CST


    by The Tao of Joe

    If he really liked the movie that much, why did he write it in the exact way he tells people not to write criticism? Dude knows how to write a review. He could do it in his sleep, but the reason he's writing a cobbled together list with a crude 'see it' recommendation at the end is because he really has nothing that great to say about this film. He just doesn't want to get a bunch of angry e-mails, that's all.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:50 a.m. CST

    "Change the reactions, and then you've changed the characters."

    by Evangelion217

    This is by far the most idiotic thing that I have read. There was actually nothing different about the characters during their reactions to Veidt's plan. What they did, suited their characters. And giving Manhattan's final line to Laurie, still gave the film that cynical ending. I would of preffered Manhattan to say it, but it was still done perfectly. Alot of the changes were damn near perfect, while some did rub me the wrong way. I think Rorshach's back story should of been more poetic, instead of just being disturbing and fucked up. But it was still awesome. :)

  • March 6, 2009, 5:50 a.m. CST

    Glad to know you can read Ebert's mind Tao.

    by FookU

    When really what you're doing is projecting your own feelings into a four star review.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:52 a.m. CST


    by The Tao of Joe

    My butt does hurt, but not because of the squid. My butt hurts [SPOILER ALERT] because the finale ends Night Owl getting into a slapfight with Ozymandias, giving him some preachy, no doubt studio-mandated diatribe about how what he did was 'wrong.' Then on top of that, Dr. Manhattan leaves Earth before he has a chance to tell him the best line from the graphic novel, a line which cold slaps Ozymandias - and humanity's chances at lasting peace - moreso than Night Owl's bitchy little catfight.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:54 a.m. CST

    Tao that's your opinion. Ebert enjoyed the movie.

    by FookU

    Get over it.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:55 a.m. CST

    The Toe of Joe

    by Evangelion217

    Again, you prove to be an idiot. Roger gave a number of reasons to why he thinks the film is great. He gave reasons, explanations, and called it a very rich experience. This isn't a man who is afraid of getting hate male, this is a man who is brave enough to give it 4 stars, and being honest about it. Just because you didn't like the film, doesn't mean that everybody else should follow your lead. And this film is a polarizing work of art, that not only will divide the critics, but probably the people as well.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:55 a.m. CST

    If Watchmen fails will people question the power of AICN?

    by JuanSanchez

  • March 6, 2009, 5:56 a.m. CST


    by The Tao of Joe

    Manhattan's line means nothing if it's not said to Ozymandias. He's the one who should be told that line at the height of his pompous ego rush for having 'saved' the world. That line ass-owns him far more than getting his nose shoved into his poop my Night Owl.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:57 a.m. CST

    I really don't think Ebert is worried about angry emails

    by Spifftacular Squirrel Girl

    I just find that very hard to believe. I'm sure he's had plenty of hate mail over the years from movies he's panned before.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:59 a.m. CST

    Oh, and Nite Owl slapping Ozymandias.......

    by Evangelion217

    Is probably one of the most powerful, and emotionally driven moments in the film. You see a good friendship finally broken apart, and it's pretty tragic to watch. You still don't know who was the good guy or even the bad guy, but you do feel that Veidt's plan won't have a lasting impact. And Laurie's final words still has that very cynical vibe to it. Another reason to why this film is great, is because of the realism that went into it. It's not fun being a superhero, nor a vigiliante, and the so-called superheroes are worse then their villains. Snyder pulled it off greatly, and almost made it look easy. Ebert also noticed this, and he loved it. Look Toa, I know your probably just another idiot on the talkback. But Roger Ebert did love this film, and he's usually been the one in the minority. Luckily, he's simply on the more positive side of this films reviews.

  • March 6, 2009, 6 a.m. CST


    by The Tao of Joe

    I would certainly be afraid of a 'hate male' - whatever that is. But in your response, you list the very qualms I had with Ebert's write-up. He gave reasons, explanations, and called it a very rich experience, all in that very tidy, 'here's a list of things I like about this movie,' way he says film criticism should not be. It wasn't a cohesive essay about the film, and as such, is a weak example of film criticism.

  • March 6, 2009, 6 a.m. CST

    I'd actually rather see his nose shoved into poop.

    by FookU

    But maybe that's just me.

  • March 6, 2009, 6:02 a.m. CST

    Duane Dudek of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel liked it too!!!!!

    by JuanSanchez

    Quick Harry - start a new topic!!!!!

  • March 6, 2009, 6:03 a.m. CST


    by The Tao of Joe

    Read his review of that horrible director's cut he made for "Donnie Darko." He's basically admitting he's afraid of getting more hate mail from that movie's ravenous fans by saying the film doesn't make sense. That too was an example of bad criticism, only that time, I can't fault him. After all, he was reviewing a shitty version of a decent flick he had already seen before. Had to have been a surreal experience no doubt.

  • March 6, 2009, 6:03 a.m. CST

    Who cares if you think his criticism is weak or not.

    by FookU

    The man is a legend and he can damn well write his four star review however the fuck he wants to. It doesn't make it any less of a positive review just because you didn't like the movie. Because now what you're saying is his review is inferior when your original argument was that the review was a cover to keep from getting flamed.

  • March 6, 2009, 6:04 a.m. CST

    Manhattan's line is not Manhattan's line anymore.

    by Evangelion217

    So you have no point at all. It's Laurie's line in the film version, and it completely works. Veidt getting punched by his old friend, and seeing how wrong he might be, is enough to destroy his ego for awhile. I would of loved to see Mahattan deliver that line, and then see that mushroom cloud at the end. But the new ending still works, and it probably fits alot better. Especially since it creates a more emotional connection between Dan and Rorshach. The only thing that I didn't like in the ending to the GN, was that Dan didn't know that Rorshach was killed, nor did he seem to care. It felt cold, and Zack got rid of that coldness.

  • March 6, 2009, 6:04 a.m. CST

    @ V'Shael - The book doesnt say he created it...

    by lotor666

    Manhattan asks HIMSELF if he is shaping it, or if its pre-determined contours are guiding his hand... I took that comment from Ebert as if he sorta knew that... that's what I always found interesting in the book. You may have seen a different meaning.. Surely this is why Watchmen is so praised... it can be interpreted so many ways... To you is seems like he may be creating it.. but to me that is the QUESTION he is asking the universe...

  • March 6, 2009, 6:07 a.m. CST

    FookU (last time for me)

    by The Tao of Joe

    Then our argument ends here. You and I obviously wanted different things from a movie based on "Watchmen." Don't know why anyone would want such a simplified, dumbed down take of the book's brilliant final moments, but I can't argue with you. You like what you like.

  • March 6, 2009, 6:08 a.m. CST

    The director's cut of "Donnie Darko" is brilliant.

    by Evangelion217

    And here's Roger Ebert's review of it. Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut BY ROGER EBERT / August 20, 2004 Cast & CreditsDonnie Darko: Jake Gyllenhaal Rose Darko: Mary McDonnell Eddie Darko: Holmes Osborne Gretchen Ross: Jena Malone Ms. Pomeroy: Drew Barrymore Samantha Darko: Daveigh Chase Elizabeth Darko: Maggie Gyllenhaal Jim Cunningham: Patrick Swayze Dr. Thurman: Katharine Ross Dr. Monnitoff: Noah Wyle Pandora/Darko Productions presents a film written and directed by Richard Kelly. Running time: 142 minutes. Rated R (for language, some drug use and violence). Printer-friendly » E-mail this to a friend » "Pay close attention," warns the Web site for "Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut," because "You could miss something." Damn, I missed it. I'm no closer to being able to explain the film's events than I was after seeing the 2001 version, which was about 20 minutes shorter. The difference is, that doesn't bother me so much. The movie remains impenetrable to logical analysis, but now I ask myself: What logical analysis would explain the presence of 6-foot-tall rabbit with what looks like the head of a science-fiction insect? The director's cut adds footage that enriches and extends the material but doesn't alter its tone. It adds footnotes that count down to a deadline, but without explaining the nature of the deadline or the usefulness of the countdown (I think it comes from an omniscient narrator who, despite his omniscience, sure does keep a lot to himself). What we have, in both versions, is a film of paradox that seems to involve either time travel or parallel universes. Having seen in "The Butterfly Effect" (2004) how a film might try to explain literally the effects of temporal travel, I am more content to accept this version of the Darko backward and abysm of time. Let it be said that writer-director Richard Kelly's first film engages us so intriguingly that we desire an explanation. It opens with Donnie Darko (Jake Gyllenhaal) sprawled at dawn in the middle of a remote road next to his bicycle. Just sleeping, he explains. He's out of his house a lot at night, apparently on the advice of the rabbit, which is named Frank. It's good advice, since Donnie returns home to find that the engine of a jet airliner has fallen from the skies into his bedroom. The strange thing is, the government has no record of a plane losing its engine. Given the eerie national mood after 9/11, this detail did not much recommend the film to audiences when it opened on Oct. 26, 2001. The film, a success at Sundance 2001, opened and closed in a wink, grossing only about $500,000 and inspiring some negative reviews ("Insufferable, lumpy and dolorous ... infatuated with an aura of hand-me-down gloom." -- Elvis Mitchell, New York Times). But it gathered a band of admirers, became a hit on DVD and at midnight shows, and is now returning to theaters. More than one critic said the movie was set in "John Hughes country," that 1980s suburban land of teenage angst and awkward love. Certainly Gyllenhaal is convincing in his convoluted relationship with Gretchen (Jena Malone), the new girl in town -- who walks into the English class of Ms. Pomeroy (Drew Barrymore), asks where she should sit, and is told as only Drew Barrymore could tell her, "Sit next to the boy you think is the cutest." When she chooses Donnie, we can see why Gyllenhaal was once considered to play Spider-Man; he's got the look of a guy whose inner demons wall him off from girlfriends. Donnie's suburb is green and leafy, and his home life happy. His mother (Mary McDonnell) is filled with warmth and love, and his father (Holmes Osborne) is not the standard monster of dad-hating Hollywood formulas. At school, Ms. Pomeroy is a good enough teacher to get herself fired. And the parent-teacher conference involving Donnie's run-in with the gym teacher is one of those scenes where parents try to look properly appalled at their son's behavior while it's all they can do to keep from laughing. Then there's Frank, who is definitely not from Hughesland. He shows Donnie how to look into the future, and even gives him the power to visualize other people as they follow their timelines (a timeline resembles a rope of coiling water, like the effect in "The Abyss"). And there is the case of the wizened old lady known as Grandma Death, who lives down the street and once wrote a book titled The Philosophy of Time Travel, which hinted or warned or predicted or intuited something ominous, I think, although I have no idea what it might have been. The details of daily life are exactly right. We believe Donnie as a teenager who did not ask to be haunted by doubts and demons and is bearing up as best he can. He lives in a real world; apart, to be sure, from the rabbit and the timelines. Richard Kelly shows that he could make a straightforward movie about these characters, but "Donnie Darko" has no desire to be straightforward. I wrote in my original review: "The movie builds twists on top of turns until the plot wheel revolves one time too many, and we're left scratching our heads. We don't demand answers at the end, but we want some kind of closure; Keyser Soze may not explain everything in 'The Usual Suspects,' but it feels like he does." In that 2001 review, I found a lot to admire and enjoy in "Donnie Darko," including the director's control of tone and the freshness of the characters. My objection was that you couldn't understand the movie, which seemed to have parts on order. With the director's cut, I knew going in that I wouldn't understand it, so perhaps I was able to accept it in a different way. I ignored logic and responded to tone, and liked it more. There may have been another factor at work: As I grow weary of films like "The Princess Diaries 2," which follow their formulas with relentless fidelity to cliche and stereotype, I feel gratitude to directors who make something new. "Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut" is alive, original and intriguing. It's about a character who has no explanation for what is happening in his life, and is set in a world that cannot account for prescient rabbits named Frank. I think, after all, I am happier that the movie doesn't have closure. What kind of closure could there be? Frank takes off the insect head and reveals Drew Barrymore, who in a classroom flashback, explains the plot and brings in Grandma Death as a resource person? Where does it say that he was afraid of giving it a negative review??

  • March 6, 2009, 6:08 a.m. CST

    its got a 57 on meta critic

    by zapano

    that pretty much tells me its average at best and has confirmed my suspicions about harry's, mori's and quint's reviews ebert is an excellent reviewer but he can go a bit funny at times, which might be the case here anthony lane gives it 2 out of 10 mark kermode will have his review out later today but he's already hinted what he thinks about the film, stressing that it's a zach snyder film, which pretty much says it all i'm already going in with low expectations

  • March 6, 2009, 6:09 a.m. CST

    Tao I haven't seen the movie.

    by FookU

    I'm not arguing that the movie is even good. I'm telling you that you can't say a review wasn't positive when it damn well was.

  • March 6, 2009, 6:10 a.m. CST

    The Tao of Joe

    by WavingFlagsInSpace

    My goodness, you absolutely destroy Ebert in your comments. You might as well label him a complete sell-out.<p>Do his employers know that he writes glowing reviews simply to avoid getting negative reader response? Perhaps you better tell them. And could you then do a run-down of all the other reviewers in all major forms of media and tell me what they're thinking as well?<p>You build your entire point on the fact that Ebert deviates from his own definition of how to write a review...what if he has seen a film that obliges him to re-think his style & approach. Can't a writer adapt and change?<p>Clearly you can't as you assume it is impossible.<p>I'm not saying you're wrong I am just wholeheartedly disagreeing with your analysis of Ebert's character AND his review.

  • March 6, 2009, 6:10 a.m. CST

    Toa, you're a complete moron.

    by Evangelion217

    You make things up, and claim what Ebert does is fact, when it's really not true at all. You are a liar, a fake, and a complete idiot. The fact is that the ending to the "Watchmen" is not dumb down at all. That's probably why the reviews have been mixed. Critics, and maybe alot of people were expecting something more accessible, or dumb down. When in reality, the new ending is just as polarizing as the GN's. It might not be as original, but it's still just as emotional, daring, and uncompromising. I guess you just wanted to see a carbon copy off of the GN. Tell you what, stick to the motiom comic Dvd. Or better yet, pay me 40 bucks and I'll glue the pages of the GN, and MOVE THEM FOR YOU! ;)

  • March 6, 2009, 6:13 a.m. CST

    Here you go, Eva

    by The Tao of Joe

  • March 6, 2009, 6:15 a.m. CST

    Two Thumbs Up...

    by Demonoid

    My Butt!! Roger, I hope someday you read the book.

  • March 6, 2009, 6:16 a.m. CST

    Eva, the finale was nothing if not compromised.

    by The Tao of Joe

  • March 6, 2009, 6:19 a.m. CST

    Tao no one really cares what you thought about the movie.

    by FookU

    Your argument is that Ebert compromised his integrity to avoid being flamed and the fact is he didn't. He wrote his review, poorly constructed or not and that's just the way it is.

  • March 6, 2009, 6:20 a.m. CST

    Yes "Waving"

    by The Tao of Joe

    Ebert won a pulitzer and honed his craft as an essayist for decades only to see "Watchmen" and suddenly 're-think his style and approach' to film criticism forever. That's how good "Watchmen" is, folks. Glad the movie was so brilliant that it changed Ebert that much.

  • March 6, 2009, 6:24 a.m. CST

    Harry, if you two are such good mates...

    by Purple_Tentacle

    What can you tell us about the new show he's working on with Roeper?? Roger is the really the only other reviewer I read. It's so sad to see him in the state he's in, but amazing and heartwarming that he's still got high spirits.

  • March 6, 2009, 6:40 a.m. CST

    most mainstream writers are giving it a good review

    by Spandau Belly

    I've only read negative reviews on really geeky sites. All the newspapers are giving it a really good rating.

  • March 6, 2009, 6:44 a.m. CST

    Ebert is alright

    by most excellent ninja

    I liked it when Batman Begins came out and some mother was complaining that it wasn't a kids movie and all this and Ebert told her since the 80's the comics haven't been for kids so she should wise up.

  • March 6, 2009, 6:47 a.m. CST

    He's the best there is at what he does

    by Arteska


  • March 6, 2009, 6:51 a.m. CST

    The Tao of Joe

    by most excellent ninja

    The use of music that was used in film before was metatextual, he said it in an interview before they begun filming. Ie Ride of the Valkyries and Apocalypse Now. It was sort of trying to do what the comic did but in a film way, that part worked. 99 Red ballons didn't.

  • March 6, 2009, 6:53 a.m. CST


    by most excellent ninja

    It is dumbed down, it didn't have to be a carbon copy. But like I said in another article, if they engineered some fake alien and it looked like the Cloverfield monster or something and throughout the movie there were reports about genetic scientists missing it would of worked better. Then Ozy explains that his intention was to create a fak alien invasion that would unite the world against an external threat. At the same time using a specific mad supervillain plan to do it, and using art and science fiction to execute it. That's why the new ending is dumbed down, I just made another ending that takes away the complexity in execution of the original ending but kept the intent and the nuances.

  • March 6, 2009, 6:57 a.m. CST


    by The Tao of Joe

    I get the use of Valkyries, but what about "Sound of Silence," "Boogie Man," or "All Along the Watchtower"? Let's face it, the dude picked a horrible soundtrack. And when you have the musical tastes of my redneck uncle, it would be best to go with an original score, something that was also very weak about "Watchmen." People who want to make good movies should not hire Tyler Bates to score them.

  • March 6, 2009, 7:02 a.m. CST

    Ah, The Tao of Joe

    by WavingFlagsInSpace

    Do you fear change? Is adaptation as a writer something that makes you uncomfortable? Does the thought of improvisation, the realigning of boundaries and the reassessment of method keep you awake at night?<p>Sarcasm's fucking annoying, isn't it?<p>You say so much about yourself as a person when you resort to sarcasm as a suitable response. I never wrote this was Ebert's reaction, just that it is a possibility that he might, at any stage, want to continue to refine himself a s awriter rathert han cling dogmatically to aging methodologies.<p>But flame away, my man. Flame away. Ebert could be as big a cock as might be if he goes to see the film a second time at IMAX. Perhaps you have unearthed a hitherto unknown masochistic streak in the old guy.

  • March 6, 2009, 7:02 a.m. CST

    The Tao of Joe is right.

    by most excellent ninja

    My butt does hurt, but not because of the squid. My butt hurts [SPOILER ALERT] because the finale ends Night Owl getting into a slapfight with Ozymandias, giving him some preachy, no doubt studio-mandated diatribe about how what he did was 'wrong.' Then on top of that, Dr. Manhattan leaves Earth before he has a chance to tell him the best line from the graphic novel, a line which cold slaps Ozymandias - and humanity's chances at lasting peace - moreso than Night Owl's bitchy little catfight.------- <p> That's how I feel too. The Manhattan line is probably the most important and it's fucked.

  • March 6, 2009, 7:03 a.m. CST

    Tao of Joe

    by whofan71

    What would you have picked for the soundtrack, hmmm? Not everybody has the same musical tastes, so you're not going to please everybody. Sound of Silence was unexpected, but I thought went beautifuly with the scene. Boogie Man worked well for the transistion to the 70's. All Along the Watchtower was a suprise, but it was referenced in the graphic novel, so it worked as a nod to that. And you know what, I like all those songs, too, so maybe you should take a lesson from your redneck uncle, you fuck!

  • March 6, 2009, 7:03 a.m. CST

    Tao of Joe = class

    by happyboy

    Ebert is the most famous living American movie critic (probably most famous living American critic of anything). Dude battled a life-threatening illness. I hardly think at that stage of his life he writes reviews fearing what nerds are gonna say... considering he went out on a limb many times during the 90s supporting Hong Kong Cinema, comic book movies and other genres that seriously risked ridicule by his own peers and his readers. Ebert is the ORIGINAL GEEK (apologizees to Head Geek) and his reviews always have an individual perspective you cant get anywhere else. SO yeah if he wants to write a laundry list he will... and if he wants to write a maudlin column about his "feelings" almost ignoring the movie he's reviewing he's done that in the past as well. Ebert's awesome STFU

  • March 6, 2009, 7:04 a.m. CST

    I'm just glad we got yet another Watchmen talkback

    by chrth

    The fourteen on the front page weren't enough

  • March 6, 2009, 7:06 a.m. CST


    by The Tao of Joe

    You keep losing me. So let's get this straight, a crude list of reasons why a film is good is better and more refined than a cohesive essay? Do tell. As far as your comment regarding sarcasm, it appears as though you have called the kettle, teapot.

  • March 6, 2009, 7:10 a.m. CST

    Roger Ebert is why I love movies!!!

    by Fart_Master_Flex

    I love Roger Ebert. I love his writing. I love that he has a blog now because you get to see how amazing of a man he is. When you are a kid you watch movies because they are cool and a great way to kill a rainy afternoon. They are silly things that you love (and when you are a kid, you love them all). What I learned from Roger is that films are also art. I remember seeing him and Gene argue for the first time one Sunday morning on TV and I was blown away. As a kid, seeing two people fight over a movie was mindblowing. "Don't they know movies are just ways to pass the time??" I couldn't believe two people were that passionate about film. I didn't get it. Then our local paper starting to post Roger's reviews and I started to read them. I would pour over every sentence, every word, every letter. I realized there was a world of film out there. It was global. It was more than the Goonies and the Gremlins. It was about films over all walks of life. It made me look more closely at the movies. It made me grow a passion for them as well. I know it sounds hokey, especially from a poster with a name such as mine (a name I created waaaaaaay back after a night of driking), but I really admire that man and I really feel like I owe him a lot.

  • March 6, 2009, 7:12 a.m. CST

    WATCHMEN was truly epic...

    by uberfreak

    I will never watch another PG13-rated sci-fi or fantasy movie again. Snyder, the actors, and everyone else gets a standing ovation from yours truly. All the haters must die.

  • March 6, 2009, 7:24 a.m. CST

    Tao of Joe, what is it you really want from other TBers?

    by FookU

    I mean you say he sold out to geeks even though he didn't. Then you start criticizing the movie which is well within your right but it's a distraction from your original argument which you won't cop to. He wrote his review the way he did and you're here critiquing his review only because it's positive. If he had complained like a little bitch, much like you have, you'd have praised it as his fucking magnum opus of reviews or at the very least you wouldn't have said shit about his poor writing form. God damn you're as bad as the fucking squid bitches. You hated the movie. Roger Ebert liked it. Shut the fuck up already. Maybe it wasn't his most well written review but you know what? People care about and respect his opinion which is a hell of a lot more than can be said about yours.

  • March 6, 2009, 7:33 a.m. CST

    Watchmen = STAR WARS Episodes I, II & III

    by popmeow

    I've read the graphic novel and I loved the graphic novel. Moore's take a on a dystopian, alternate 1985 is brilliant, not only because it deconstructs the superhero mythos, but because it also serves to tell the story of humanity's shortcomings. The film, while visually stunning, simply doesn't convey the breadth/depth of Moore's writing. Snyder and WB should be applauded for their attempt, but someone needs to accept blame for trying to condense what should have been two movies (at least) into one. There's simply too much content, too much history to convey and to squeeze it into 2 1/2 hours does a disservice to the source material and, ultimately, the viewer. As a fan of the graphic novel, I kept trying to imagine someone that had no prior experience with the Watchmen, trying to follow the movie's plot. I really don't think it's possible. At its simplest level, the Watchmen story is just a who-done-it mystery with capes. But below that surface, Watchmen is an allegory for the human condition, with the moral of the story being: even supermen (with superpowers or without) are still only and fundamentally men and, therefore they're subject to the same pettiness and shortcomings as anyone else. What this film suffers from the most is its reverence for the source material. Again, I'm a fan of the original story and, despite all of its flaws, I even like Singer's "Superman Returns", but like "Returns", Synder hasn't made "Watchmen" his own. You simply can't take a graphic novel like that and copy it verbatim and expect it to work. (If you do, then it makes very little sense to suddenly deviate from the source material at the very end.) The story needed to be adapted for film - better dialogue, better pacing, more of an organic flow between scenes and characters. Instead, we never get more than a few minutes of any one scene or character or situation. Each new scene felt like a vignette or a quick synopsis of another film, rather than a full-bodied scene. As for the music - each time a new "era song" played, it totally took me out of the movie. The songs simply didn't add anything; they certainly didn't round out scenes. The music was a mishmash of tired, musical cliches; when it should have been original and resonating. Overall, Synder and WB should be commended on their attempt. However, in my opinion, this movie is the exact opposite of "The Dark Knight". It exemplifies everything NOT to do in a comic book adaptation and, ironically (given the brilliance of the source material) it suffers from Lucas/Matrix-itis - pretty visuals, but little to no coherent content. "The Dark Knight" still reigns supreme.

  • March 6, 2009, 7:33 a.m. CST


    by daggor

    I also pause to say: "Roger Ebert is my friend." Hm. It's not as difficult as I thought.

  • March 6, 2009, 7:36 a.m. CST

    "Ebert's site doesn't have the hilarious talkbacks"

    by barry convex

    Roger also has a blog with talkbacks and plenty of comments by Ebert himself.

  • March 6, 2009, 7:36 a.m. CST

    One 100% surefire way to get a **** review from Ebert...

    by Nasty In The Pasty a movie that's at least 80% green screen.

  • March 6, 2009, 7:38 a.m. CST


    by barry convex

  • March 6, 2009, 7:42 a.m. CST

    Damn lack of preview!!!

    by barry convex

    Well, here's the link to his Watchmen blog post.

  • March 6, 2009, 7:46 a.m. CST

    I'm damn excited for EBERTFEST

    by Kief_Ledger

    went last year and it was a blast

  • March 6, 2009, 7:49 a.m. CST

    Then again, he called "Dark City" the best movie of its year...

    by Tad Ghostal there's that.

  • March 6, 2009, 7:49 a.m. CST


    by BizarroJerry

    I don't get it, Harry? He disagrees with you so there's something wrong? What gives? The movie seems to be getting mostly positive reviews from critics. Ebert seems to appreciate it because it's very different from other superhero movies. I fear that the Watchmen fans or geeks or whatevers cannot allow for the fact that people who are unfamiliar with the original comic could like the movie.<p>Harry, you really need to explain yourself when you post these things!

  • March 6, 2009, 7:50 a.m. CST

    Do-weeee-jeeeeesus, Tao!

    by WavingFlagsInSpace

    Of course I was being sarcastic - do you not do irony?<p>Asking me whether a list or cohesive essay is better or worse as a form of review is not the same as your original point which was to state that Ebert defined a methodolgy and, therefore, must not deviate from that and any deviation is immediately considered unsatisfactory.<p>Your desire to confine Ebert within a very, very limited paradigm seems to me presumptuous and reductive, to be honest.<p>He gave it four stars...a clear qualitative judgment which renders his written piece almost irrelevant, if you want to go that way. He insinuates in the article that he needs another viewing to clarify a few hesitancies in his mind...I find it hard to believe that a man like Ebert would sacrifice his integrity on the altar of fanboys...but I guess you don't.<p>You're reading between lines where I guess I can't see.

  • March 6, 2009, 7:50 a.m. CST


    by BizarroJerry

    Does your "sigh" mean you're disappointed or pleased? WTF?

  • March 6, 2009, 7:53 a.m. CST

    Moore Has Earned The Right To Be An Egotistical, Pretentious, Pr

    by LaserPants

    He's a nutcase, thinks he's a wizard (*snicker*), but he's also a friggin' genius. Undeniably the greatest comic writer of all time. Given this, I think he has earned the write to be a little eccentric and kind of an egotistical prick who wears Dungeons and Dragons knuckle rings without irony.

  • March 6, 2009, 7:54 a.m. CST


    by LaserPants

  • March 6, 2009, 7:55 a.m. CST

    Writing a review...

    by BizarroJerry

    to please fans? Really, Tao? If that's what Ebert does, he shouldn't have gave Indy 4 a 3.5 star review, and bitched along with the fanboys.<p>From what I've seen of Ebert's reviews he doesn't pander or answer to anyone else. This is silly. Blaming a film critic's disagreement with your opinion on some conspiracy or studio pressure or whatever is just ridiculous. You present your own opinion as if that's proof Ebert isn't being honest. Ridiculous.

  • March 6, 2009, 8:02 a.m. CST

    BizarroJerry - I believe that was a happy sigh

    by Spifftacular Squirrel Girl

    Also wanted to add that Ebert did get flamed big time for his stance on videogames not being art. He still stands his opinion even after the backlash. I still don't see him altering a review because of a few comic book geeks... me included.

  • March 6, 2009, 8:04 a.m. CST

    Ebert is a Fat Twat

    by PlasmaOrb

    Im sorry, but ive never like him... I always felt he was this pretentious little twat who was mad at the film world for never giving in and letting him write the movies he would have liked to have scene.. probably would have ended up with a trilogy of gay bath house movies. What he needs to do is read the graphic novel, then go back and see it again. Help him get a better idea of what its all about, since there are so many things that are left out, for good and bad reasons. All the negative or so so reivews I have read so far are from people who I dont think have read the book.

  • March 6, 2009, 8:10 a.m. CST

    Alan Moore owns your sorry white asses

    by BrowncoatJedi

    He's the only superhero writer in comics who doesn't grovel at the feet of Marvel and DC for scraps.

  • March 6, 2009, 8:20 a.m. CST

    Ebert also liked Hancock

    by jarjarmessiah

    Just Sayin'

  • March 6, 2009, 8:24 a.m. CST

    Read BOTH of eberts reviews....

    by WhinyNegativeBitch

    ...So, was he on mescaline when he watched the flick? Jesus, if he can write that much about one small strand of the film, I smell essays in the future. I can totally see how some people will be taken with the almost psychadelic Dr. Manhattan passages though, they were probably the most mind blowing weird ass cult flick passages of the film. They certainly made me excited about seeing Fincher and Co. bringing Black Hole or Heavy Metal to the big screen. Would love to see some of that 70's freaky sci fi given this treatment. Unfortunately Watchmen is going to be a flop, so that wont help.

  • March 6, 2009, 8:24 a.m. CST

    Umm, Rex Carsalot

    by Fart_Master_Flex

    Most movies don't have glowing blue wang in them. I wouldn't think that it is strange to point it out in a review.

  • March 6, 2009, 8:34 a.m. CST

    Harry, Seriously SHUT THE FUCK UP

    by Proman1984

    And I say that without any respect to you. Oh, and by the way, stop turning every post into a story about you. Nobody cares WHO YOU ARE "Friends" with. And he may have tolerated you in the past but I doubt Ebert considers a stupid guy like yourself a friend anyway.

  • March 6, 2009, 8:36 a.m. CST

    Saw it in IMAX, had to empty my underpants afterwards

    by KillaKane

    Amazng piece of cinema, personally I think Snyder pulled it off, damn near impossible to distill what is a pretty dense and didactic graphic novel into something that will garner props from both comic fandom and regular moviegoing folk alike (if such a demographic exists)but he nailed the essence of it. Can't wait for the Blue Ray and hopefully extended version - Black Freighter. Ebert was on the money with his review, it warrants revisiting simply because it's such a rich and overwhelming cinematic experience. If you know the graph and the political/Global climate that fostered Moore's work, then you'll get it and appreciate the difficulty in successfully reconciling commercial 'bottom line' necessity with a faithful adaptation of what is widely regarded as a seminal work.

  • March 6, 2009, 8:41 a.m. CST

    Kids? There is alot worse than blue cock...

    by WhinyNegativeBitch

    ...In the flick. If blue cock is what is bothering you, and not severed arms or cleavers in foreheads, you need to seek professional help.

  • March 6, 2009, 8:44 a.m. CST

    Maybe I've read the wrong Ebert...

    by UndeadXeke

    ...but I've just had a quick read of a couple of reviews (Push and Role Models) and it seems like he either didn't understand what was going on in those films or he wasn't paying attention - even then...Push and Role Models, hardly taxing cinema. He's getting rudimentary things wrong (characters and plot), not what I would expect from someone who reviews movies for a living. Maybe I just happened to read the only two half assed pieces he's ever written but, to me, it seems like he's in over his head. I haven't seen Watchmen yet so can't comment on his review, but I wouldn't put much weight in what he said.

  • March 6, 2009, 8:46 a.m. CST

    Well, Ebert likes this as well so his word is gold to me.

    by Stuntcock Mike

  • March 6, 2009, 8:51 a.m. CST

    I read it yesterday

    by skoolbus

    and I thought it was a great review. He's just a damn good writer. If you want to waste an afternoon in a good way, go watch the old Siskel & Ebert reviews on youtube. They're awesome.

  • March 6, 2009, 8:57 a.m. CST

    my review is better and it's inside:

    by lavatory love machine

    the firts reaction is total shock, this is a movie that shouldn't exist in a world where benjamin button gets nominated for best pic it's completely uncompromising, all the changes are to adapt the narrative into a three act movie, not one is to make it more commercial, in fact it's far more violent than the book and very close to it's complexity but that's not say it's hard to follow, if you watch it from an active perspective everything that happens is cristal clear but it won't be spell out for you it's interesting to follow the reactions on the theater, it was evident that most of the people were unfamiliar with the material so at first I could hear total silence, then gradually Roschard started to win the audience, by time he gets arrested, he was the new fan favorite hero, all the people on the theater were 100% on his side laughing and cheering at everything he did, even the very obvious midget jokes got a big laugh (but it was a little distracting that they got the midget from Seinfeld for the role) since I was familiar with the book I had no problem reading spoilers on reviews but one thing I was very interested to know no wrote about it, and it is the very last scene, I suspect more people want to know about it, so let me talk about that: first of all it's the same scene from the book, the third rate newspaper, there's a fat nerd with comedian t shirt eating something, then the editor comes in complaining that since all the world is in peace they have nothing to write about, he says something like "the world is one big hippie comunity" so the fat guy say they could dig into the nuts mail, so the camera zooms in a pile of mail and the diary is on the top, and Roschard voice over reads: "october 12th, a comedian was killed in New York", then cut to black and a very loud punk/rock song starts and the credits roll and that point the audience that for the first 30 or 40 minutes was puzzled and curious about the movie, was suddenly on a movie high, cheering like at the end of the dark knight or return of the king

  • March 6, 2009, 9 a.m. CST

    waaay past just a review

    by son_of_ebert

    more an introspection.. an inner dictum brought forth through the process of scrutiny manifested in text.. to be consumed by the homeless drunkard or toasted in fancy art houses.. mulled by minions, sloshed by sanity, left to buzzards beaks of craw and bone.. RE: "Dr. Manhattan: Is He Really There?", Roger Ebert's Jounal, 03 Mar 20009

  • March 6, 2009, 9:05 a.m. CST

    Ebert was right!

    by Coma Baby

    Anyone who is on the fence should definitely read his review. I agree, he usually gives special effectathons a pass. But this is no Prequel trilogy. For me, Watchmen was excellent with flashes of greatness. By the time Rotten Tomatoes hit 65% my expectations were pretty low. I'd read a bunch of reviews - some hating it, some sort of liking it, some thinking it was the best thing since Jesus popped out. I'd read so many reviews I really didn't know what movie I was going to see. But out of all of them, Ebert's review stood out as clearly the most thoughtful and the most able to judge the film on its own terms. I read that and I had a little bit of hope. <P> Ignore all the nit-picking. Anyone who enjoyed the graphic novel (like me) will have a few minor gripes. But most of the reviewers did not get it. They did. not. get it. They were caught up in the back story of the film itself, The Book, or else the themes and ideas of the film just went over their heads (I'm looking at you, self satisfied, disengenously morally outraged, NYer guy). <P> Relax. None of the performances are bad (though some of my friends had an issue with Malin Ackerman I thought she was fine). All of the actors became the characters, at least for me, for the duration of the film. And some of them are great - Rorshach especially. His final scene is nailed and it's powerful. The Commedian, Jon, and understated but perfect Nite Owl are also really good. <P> I still miss the squid, (it could have been awesome - just mentally insert it in the final scenes of carnage) but the replacement makes sense in the context of the film and only changes the meaning of the ending slightly (instead of fear of aliens we have fear of a vengeful god uniting humanity - which actually works really well and has its roots in alternative power scheme that's already in the book. The idea of god or the lack thereof and the point/pointlessness of existence comes up a bunch in the film, so the end with a false Jon/god hanging over everyone's head actually has a lot of power). There's so much more I want to write but that's what blogs are for I and don't want to be one of those people who posts a book. Anyway, comic geeks, film geeks, see it - and even if, for some reason, you mildly dislike or totally hate it, you'll go away thinking about it.

  • March 6, 2009, 9:07 a.m. CST

    Alan Moore...

    by ericinwisconsin

    ...That old man is just a crazy wizard. <br /><br /> Sorry, that HAD to be said, and I wanted to be the one to say it.

  • March 6, 2009, 9:10 a.m. CST


    by Blanket-Man

    C'mon, this "Ebert" guy is obviously a WB shill!

  • March 6, 2009, 9:15 a.m. CST

    Get over yourself REX...

    by DoctorWho?

    So, you read an infinitesimal amount of comments from mostly dyfuntional, adolescent, foul mouthed TB'ers on a geek web site and thereby extrapolate that American culture have 'issues' with male sexuality. <p> No, that's not ALL that gets mentioned but it seemed that's ALL you seem to be focused on. This film is being discected nine ways from Sunday from bad acting to soundtrack, to dialogue, to no squid and blah, blah, blah...<p> Yo, step your game up's pretty weak if all you've got are stupid little swipes at American culture and how you're so sexually free and enlightened "back home in DUBLIN". Your smug little superiority shit won't fly here.

  • March 6, 2009, 9:18 a.m. CST

    Droid here - Have you read A.O. Scotts' NY Times review?

    by Droid

    No? Here's a snippet. <p>"The film is more curiosity than provocation, an artifact of a faded world brought to zombie half-life by the cinematic technology of the present." <p>This site is disgusting in the way it's pimping this film. Every second 'story' these days is to about Watchmen. Wake up, Harry. Watchmen doesn't need to be endlessly pimped. Start supporting the lesser known films like Outlander, which you apparently loved, but failed to even write a review for. Those are the films you should be supporting.

  • March 6, 2009, 9:23 a.m. CST

    Ebert clearly hadn't read the graphic novel

    by Rupee88

    bascially the consensus seems to be that if you read the comics, the film is disappointing ...otherwise, it is entertaining.

  • March 6, 2009, 9:24 a.m. CST

    I don't have a blue penis.......

    by Yoda's Ball Sack

    but I get blue balls.

  • March 6, 2009, 9:30 a.m. CST

    the palace on mars


    someone way up there complained that ebert didn't know if manhattan had created or discovered the structure on mars...well, having just watched the animated comic and re reading the book, Dr Manhattan says himself he doesn't know if he is creating it, or discovering it- in much the way that a statue is trapped in marble until someone uncovers there. ebert is vindicated. having not seen the movie, i don't know if manhattan gives the same voiceover he does in the comic that says the same thing. but if ebert questioned it and it had no narration, then i think the scene worked.

  • March 6, 2009, 9:38 a.m. CST

    Ebert: Harry I AM YOUR FATHER

    by Groothewarrior

    Harry:NOOOOOOOOOO!!! Ebert:Search your know this to be true! Harry:Ill never join you!!! Ebert:Together we can end this destructive conflict and rule the blogosphere, it is your DESTINY!!

  • March 6, 2009, 9:39 a.m. CST

    It didn't even sound like he liked it Harry.


    It was another one of those "I don't really know what to say so I'll just go through the entire plot" reviews. When Ebert is ecstatic about a movie, he is all over it. Don't pretend this was some incredibly glowing review. Read very lukewarm to me and does not encourage me to see this.

  • March 6, 2009, 9:39 a.m. CST

    the sad fate of the watchmen


    the bad thing is, many dumb people completely new to the watchmen may go buy the comic afterwards and think it's the comic adaptation of the movie, and not the other way around. which speaks well of snyder's visual faithfulness to certain scenes and panels, but not much about american intelligence.

  • March 6, 2009, 9:41 a.m. CST

    I usually just skip to the end

    by RowanM

    Did he like it or not? He did? Cool. I'm watching it this weekend. Never read the graphic novel.

  • March 6, 2009, 9:42 a.m. CST

    ebert's review in a nutshell


    i thought it was neat to look at. there where some interesting characters, in particular the blue guy- but they all had problems. (insert list of elements in movie here). in all, i think i need to watch it again.<P> yes, it was very lukewarm to say the least, but the fact is he did not eviscerate anything weither.

  • March 6, 2009, 9:50 a.m. CST

    REX, American Men Are Afraid Of Cock Because...

    by LaserPants

    America is a place that is both HYPERSEXUALIZED and ULTRA-PRUDISH at the same time. Your average Joe Sixpack is both a chronic masturbator to porn AND practically celibate. Sex, sexuality, nudity, all of it makes the lowest common denominator uneasy. This also explains why so many typical americans are so filled with rage; they have no healthy outlet for sex; its all this weird mix of fear, inadequacy, and impossible expectations. A sick, sad, terminally neurotic culture. <br><br>In terms of the cock thing, and the fear of a giant blue one, I attribute this to your average American male being afraid of their secret gay longing. Their rampant homophobia. Which, as we all know, is the first red flag / gaydar alert -- homophobics are almost ALWAYS secretly gay. I mean, everyone is a little bit gay, but your typical American male homophobe is RAGINGLY gay, and can't deal with it, so they overcompensate by acting all offended by giant blue cocks. Also, they LOVE watching sports in which large men run into each other and pat each other on the ass, and pass balls to each other under their legs. Given these deflections, I suspect that a vast number of American men are actually gay and don't know it. Hence: Fear Of A Giant Blue Cock.

  • March 6, 2009, 9:57 a.m. CST

    the one big thing i can't stand about this movie

    by noiretblanc

    is that alan moore did most of the work. of fucking course it was going to be at least decent. the worst parts of the movie are snyder's and company's faults

  • March 6, 2009, 10:08 a.m. CST

    does ozy still kick nite owls and rorscrachs ass?

    by supercowbell4therequestformorecowbell

    when they first confront him? he fuckin better...

  • March 6, 2009, 10:09 a.m. CST


    by BizarroJerry

    To the studio's credit, they prominently inlcude "From the acclaimed graphic novel" or whatever. And the credits will mention it, too. So, I suppose if people aren't paying attention and don't notice it, they'll think the GN is a adaptation of the movie. But those people would be dummies, anyway, and not much of a loss.

  • March 6, 2009, 10:12 a.m. CST

    Say what you want about Ebert's...

    by DeadPanWalking

    ... opinions, but the man can flat-out write. He's been underrated as a writer ever since Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, but he stands tall in a field where bad writing is often standard operating procedure.

  • March 6, 2009, 10:12 a.m. CST


    by Bartleby T. Scrivener

    This is why comic fans/geeks shouldn't make movies. They let their personal feelings toward the original subject matter cloud their reasoning.

  • March 6, 2009, 10:13 a.m. CST

    as for Ebert...

    by BizarroJerry

    The guy's not perfect, and I often disagree with him, but he's not some shill and he's not afraid of some fanboys. He's also a better writer than maybe 90% of movie critics. Maybe more. And from what I can tell, when he reviews a movie based on something else, he tells you if it's a good movie on its own, especially if he doesn't know the sources. Though I do seem to recall he suggested that The Godfather was better than the book it was based on.

  • March 6, 2009, 10:20 a.m. CST

    Word to Ebert.

    by Archive

    End of line.

  • March 6, 2009, 10:22 a.m. CST


    by palpatinefuckedmydog

    Was slammed by critics and viewers alike when it first came out look at it..A fucking masterpiece ahead of it's time. Watchmen has a chance of becoming just that.

  • March 6, 2009, 10:27 a.m. CST

    Great review.

    by Frank Black

    I am glad I had a chance to meet him when I worked at Rko/Warner video on 49th & Bdwy in NYC all those years ago...

  • March 6, 2009, 10:31 a.m. CST


    by chiwrtr72

    Not so much a response to Ebert's review (which was great btw), but a commentary about the end of the movie. I did like the movie but I wondered at having Rorschach's voice over giving the date of his first entry at the very end of the movie. I felt this changed the ambiguousness of the ending as it indicated more firmly that the nimrod at the end will read the journal. Any thoughts?

  • March 6, 2009, 10:36 a.m. CST

    I really doubt Ebert is afraid of fanboy hatemail

    by Oberon

    He's been around the block enough times to get more than his share - and given his health, he's probably indifferent to that sort of thing now. <p> I have not seen WATCHMEN yet, but it is beginning to look like it has a much different impact on those who have read the book versus virgins; and Snyder may have hurt himself by opting to make the fans happy. What works on the page does not always work on the screen, and my suspicion all along has been that WATCHMEN is particularly suited to the written/drawn page, not the screen, not without very substantial adaptation. Which doesn't mean that Snyder may not have been able to really nail some choice moments, visuals, or even characters - but it could well be that a too-slavish adaptation has produced something not quite the sum of its parts, a provocative movie that doesn't fully succeed in achieving its objectives. But I'll see what I think when I see it tonight.

  • March 6, 2009, 10:40 a.m. CST

    Rex Carsalot

    by DeadPanWalking

    You can't really point at every American individually and say he or she is terrified of cock. However, this country is pretty repressed sexually (although by and large violence is wholly accepted) compared to Europe. There are various theories as to why this is so, but a lot of it has to do with a lot of the early settlers being religious extremists and the currently large influence of the Christian church. These large points, as well as countless smaller ones, can perhaps help explain why American's are so frightened of cock. I'm not sure if it matters if said cock is blue or not, although that has also come up a lot in the American press lately.

  • March 6, 2009, 10:47 a.m. CST

    An e-mail I just sent to my Rog fanboy friend on Ebert's Watchme

    by JoePaLives

    Let's start with the first paragraph of Ebert's review: "After the revelation of “The Dark Knight,” here is “Watchmen,” another bold exercise in the liberation of the superhero movie. It’s a compelling visceral film — sound, images and characters combined into a decidedly odd visual experience that evokes the feel of a graphic novel." I wonder WHY it "evokes the feel of a graphic novel," Roger. Why IS THAT, I wonder? Sadly, that second sentence is as close as he gets to mentioning the book. At all. No weighing in on the book's importance on all respected comics that came after, Rog? Maybe how it has inspired countless movie and television minds since? Nothing at all? This really takes away from the respectability of this review if you're a person who HAS taken time to read the comic, and knows how critically important it was to take this incredibly deep, complicated storyline and attempt to translate that from book to screen. Ebert absolutely owed it to his many readers to mention the brilliance of the book and give it its due props--especially if he considers this a FOUR-star movie. Why not tell us in what ways you think Zack Snyder completely hit this one out of the ballpark in terms of keeping the powerful message of the book within a 3-hour movie, Roger? I mean f***, has Ebert even read the book? Is he too embarrassed to admit he has not? I will admit the meat of the review gives us SOME idea of what Ebert actually likes about Watchmen at its heart, including the focus on the "contradiction shared by superheroes," and the flawed characteristics that each of the Watchmen embody, etc. However, the review just gets a nice primordial flush down the toilet by the end: The final paragraph: "The film is rich enough to be seen more than once. I plan to see it again, this time on IMAX, and will have more to say about it. I’m not sure I understood all the nuances and implications, but I am sure I had a powerful experience. It’s not as entertaining as “The Dark Knight,” but like the “Matrix” films, LOTR and “The Dark Knight,” it’s going to inspire fevered analysis. I don’t want to see it twice for that reason, however, but mostly just to have the experience again." "I am sure I had a powerful experience." "I plan to see it again...and will have more to say about it." WTF? If your final words on the film (and while he says he will surely have "more to say" about the movie, obviously we'll never know as he's not gonna write a second review) are no more eloquent then it was a "powerful experience," you (usually) are not a respected film reviewer like Ebert. Usually, you're an uninspired high school movie reviewer writing 100-word reviews for your sh***y high school paper thinking about your next sweet-ass bong rip. My absolute biggest issue here--the review just does NOT back up a four-star rating. In many, if not most, of his other four-star reviews, he has gone above and beyond summarizing a spectacular film as simply some kind of semi-confusing, visually masturbatory "experience" he thinks he wants to have again. If you truly think I'm full of s***, re-read Ebert's Dark Knight review--which I thought was brilliant--the passion is there, his opinion is very evident, and above all it makes me feel like there's no question he believes DK is a masterpiece worthy of a 100 percent review: Even his four-star Sin City review had more feeling: This is not a personal attack on the movie fanboy's personal lord and savior, Mr. Ebert, just an opinion that he absolutely could have taken more time with this particular review to write it more convincingly. Additionally, he could have also owned up to the fact that he obviously doesn't consider this a four-star flick in his eyes, given the incredibly glassy-eyed review he stands behind here.

  • March 6, 2009, 10:56 a.m. CST

    JoePaLives... you are just plain silly

    by chiwrtr72

    JoePaLives: No weighing in on the book's importance on all respected comics that came after, Rog? Maybe how it has inspired countless movie and television minds since? Nothing at all? <p> No, nothing at all... Ebert wrote a MOVIE review not a review on graphic novels and how they impact culture and various artistic mediums. <p> JoePaLives: Additionally, he could have also owned up to the fact that he obviously doesn't consider this a four-star flick in his eyes, given the incredibly glassy-eyed review he stands behind here <p> I love when people can read minds of reviewers. Perhaps they should band together and form a superhero group and fight reviewers who somehow to mean what they write... <p> Just plain silly

  • March 6, 2009, 11:07 a.m. CST

    Has ebert read the original GN?

    by ominus

    no? then his opininion is irrelevant concerning the success of the movies adaptation

  • March 6, 2009, 11:07 a.m. CST

    Actually, Ebert IS a shill....

    by rainbowtrout1265

    He gives a rave to any film with a Left-Wing bias. His political rantings and ravings have negatively impacted his ability to give a film an unbiased assessment.

  • March 6, 2009, 11:10 a.m. CST

    like Danikas

    by ominus

  • March 6, 2009, 11:11 a.m. CST


    by JoePaLives

    Yes, it's a movie review. But writing a full-scale review of this particular movie, and not dedicating at least several thought-out lines mentioning the book, is like ignoring the elephant in the room that MUST be recognized. I wasn't suggesting that he doesn't think it's a four-star movie, just that he should perhaps give us some of his usual creative word-smithing to express why he believes this.

  • March 6, 2009, 11:11 a.m. CST

    The wiener issue....

    by BizarroJerry

    Yes, there is definitely some sexual repression in this country. It seems that while there is a big obsession with sex. A movie can refer to sex, talk about sex vaguely, etc, but actually seeing it graphically is another story. Or just seeing folks' bait and tackle. Mainstream, public stuff involving sex is not accepted, but privately, it is. The odd thing about the thriving porn industry is that you can either cosider it an indication that people are okay with that kind of full-on sex, or it could be a reaction to the repression of it. There's a lingering feeling that sex should be kept private, which in turn makes it mysterious or secretive. But that's changing little by little here, in movies. Recent comedies have almost randomly tossed in some guy's junk, often as a joke.<p>In the case of this movie, it's really pointed out because this is a "superhero movie" a genre that doesn't even usually give you a look at some boobs, let alone some guy's Mister Happy. And the thought that a special-effects created CGI superhero was carefully designed along with his willie is something ya gotta point out.

  • March 6, 2009, 11:18 a.m. CST

    More rambling on nudity...

    by BizarroJerry

    I've heard big deal actresses complaining about a double standard with male and female nudity. That has certainly been the case in the past. But we have seen a lot of man ass over the years. And it should be pointed out that, ladies, that breasts are not the equivalent of the penis. In fact, there's no male equivalent of the breast. So, Ms. Winslet, now that we are seeing the appearance of dongs in cinema, are you willing to drop yer panties and give us a look. Like an eye for an eye, but in this case, genitals for genitals.

  • March 6, 2009, 11:21 a.m. CST

    Hey BizarroJerry

    by Fart_Master_Flex

    Mz Winslet has dropped her panties in a few movies. Full on bush. I'm sure quick visit to Mr Skin will help point you in the right direction.

  • March 6, 2009, 11:22 a.m. CST


    by BizarroJerry

    While you can argue whether or not political opinions should enter into a movie review, that happening doesn't make one a "shill". A shill would be someone who waits to be told what to do. Like if Ebert gave An Inconvenient Truth a good review cuz the Democratic party told him to. He does definitely allow for his politics to affect his reviews, but from what I've seen, he oftentimes admits it. And hell, his job is to give an opinion, right?

  • March 6, 2009, 11:25 a.m. CST

    True about Winslet...

    by BizarroJerry

    She has shown off the ol' bush, but that too, is not the same as gettin' a look at the happy spot... :)

  • March 6, 2009, 11:32 a.m. CST

    NOTE: the "graphic novel" is really A COMIC BOOK!

    by Bob Cryptonight

    You can't pretty-it-up.

  • March 6, 2009, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Enough of the repressed american silliness

    by DreadPirateRoberts

    Excuse me, but claiming all americans are repressed and afraid of sex is both stupid and inaccurate. First off, americans consume more porn in various forms than anywhere else on earth. Same goes for sex toys and other sex related material. On any given night my DirecTV has 2 or three home shopping networks devoted to sex toys. Cinemax is running soft core porn, and Sex and the City (shudder) was hugely popular, nudity and sex scenes included. Americans are not afraid of sex. They are practically fixated on it. <br><br>That said, full frontal nudity is not too common in movies of any sort (not even THAT common in foreign films). So when it shows up in a super hero movie, it gets mentioned. And although Americans are also perhaps a little too comfortable with violence in entertainment, if you will look you will see that the violence in this film is mentioned just about as much as the big blue wang. So it is not all that much a big deal. Some people were surprised to see a penis in a superhero movie (or what they expect to be a superhero movie). No one is protesting it or anything. Nor is anyone 'afraid' of it.

  • March 6, 2009, 11:43 a.m. CST

    I have to confess - the comic book is ugly

    by Bot-Bot

    Returning to The Watchmen graphic novel after years of not seeing it, I'm surprised at how bland and generic the artwork is. I appreciate what a monumental task it must have been to draw such a long series, but the colors, composition in the panels and the page layouts are remarkably mundane, to the point that I wish I could just read the text alone. I'm looking forward to the film, which look far more dynamic visually.

  • March 6, 2009, 11:43 a.m. CST

    Ebert is a great writer and critic

    by 420 Boylston St

    and I hope his surgeons can restore his voice again. I think he's having the best time reviewing comicbook movies, but the Dark Knight was a better film because it was a good plot, and good story, and I cared about the characters. For Ebert to claim we the audience don't care about none of those things when watching Watchmen--he's mistaken big time. The comic book mini-series had everything the Dark Knight had and was very compelling and I truly cared about the characters. I don't really care about the MTV style done by the so called visionary director who simply didn't do anything visionary for 300 but follow the images Frank Miller visualized to a T.

  • March 6, 2009, 11:46 a.m. CST

    Ebert and review are both good examples...

    by rbatty024

    of positive reviews that are actually convincing (unlike some of the gushing reviews that have shown up on this site). They haven't convinced me to see the movie, but they make a pretty good defense of the film.

  • March 6, 2009, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Eberts reviews are good cause studios dont own him

    by SomaShine

    maybe you should take a que from him Harry

  • March 6, 2009, 11:54 a.m. CST

    Actually Ebert's reviews are fairly inconsistent....

    by TheWaqman

    he's loved some great movies, but also bashed some great ones too. And he's loved some bad movies aswell.

  • March 6, 2009, 11:54 a.m. CST

    Yeah. The art looks like shit.


    Thats what I don't get. I haven't read it. I understand the writing may be good.....but I've flipped through the entire thing and seen that ugly ass shit color toned bullshit that reminds me of comics my friends would make in High School. What the fuck is up with that? Why do people claim its some beautiful piece of visual art? Stupid shit. Gimmee a fucking break. I just want yo' bitch ass to be straight up with me girl.

  • March 6, 2009, 11:55 a.m. CST

    Evangelion's a fucking idiot....

    by TheWaqman

    Blade Runner of your generation? Fuck off. This movie is not even 1/100th the movie that was.

  • March 6, 2009, 11:56 a.m. CST

    And if it was bad, you'd hate him.

    by RockMSockM

  • March 6, 2009, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Thanks for posting that amazing review, Harry.

    by The Reluctant Austinite

    Roger Ebert is truely a film scholar and fan; one of the last of an old school of writers about the medium with a background in English and journalism as well as cinema. As print slowly dies and a new generation of internet kids picks up the torch, I can only hope they will apply the same discipline and study to their craft before slinging opinions across the web like short order cooks of cyberspace. It was Ebert who turned the tide of opinion about "Dark City," for instance. I'll be seeing "The Watchmen" today for the first time with a number of reviews and opinions already stored in my subconscious (including a negative one from a close and respected AICN friend), but it was reading Ebert's review here that set my mind into fresh perspective mode. Thanks.

  • March 6, 2009, 12:13 p.m. CST


    by 1978CreepyThinMan

  • March 6, 2009, 12:16 p.m. CST

    When in top form, Ebert is a fine writer with lots of insight.

    by rbatty024

    I generally enjoy reading his reviews, even when I disagree with him. He is truly the last of a dying breed.

  • March 6, 2009, 12:20 p.m. CST

    Criticism is not a science.

    by imagin78

    Every critic, and individual for that matter, has inconsistant taste. There is no fact that says a movie IS great or average. Everyone here has a movie that everybody else loves that we can't stand. We also have movies that are reviled by the masses that we have a certain affection for.

  • March 6, 2009, 12:25 p.m. CST

    One more Ebert comment

    by BizarroJerry

    Go onto rottentomatoes or yahoo or any site linking to multiple reviews. Check out those reviews of any film -- as long as the agree in their opinion -- and you'll find many generic, cookie-cutter reviews commenting on the same portions of the film and writing the same style. Many of the comments even seem to be in the same order. And many these days have that same snarky, "clever" E channel insight to the world, and are pretty boring. Ebert's actually a good writer, and many of his reviews are differently written. Personally, I like when he dislikes a movie so much that he goes off on some weird tangent right in the midst of a review. He writes a great negative review, too. I still recall when in a review of Bad Boys II, he suggested all those involved in the making of the movie should be sentenced to hours of community service.

  • March 6, 2009, 12:25 p.m. CST

    LOL Laserpants

    by DoctorWho?

    Your ugly vitriol and judgement of all who are not 'you' is equal to the intolerant religious fools on this planet. I put you in that same group. <p> You perfect 'enlightened' souls must bear the heavy burden of pointing the "... sick, sad, terminally neurotic" amongst us. <p> But despite your astonishing arrogance and head trip of superiority you are right about some things.<p> Americ IS HYPERSEXUALIZED but hardly ULTRA prudish anymore. Still super uptight but things on tv radio and internet are much more loose, openly discussed and referenced WAY more than even 10 yrs ago. Still, this country has no trouble glorifying senseless violence casually in cartoons to stupid midless slasher flicks which you probably have no problem with.<p> Sexually repressed people..?welcome to the human race you intolerant twat...from the Taliban to Japan to Latin America you have far more violence, degradation and emotional disorder in cultures where to be gay means far more 'inconvenience' than finding parking at one of 5 local gay bars in your 'neurotic' town.<p> And football is now an activity for men who really want to just touch each? If you see gay subtext in sports that's your issue junior.<p> This is the country that brought you BayWatch, Will & Grace, Howard Stern, Gay Pride Parade's, Queer as Folk and porn at the click of a mouse....and God love it for that!! <p> Mom and dad must have really done a number on you pal.

  • March 6, 2009, 12:25 p.m. CST

    "Not as entertaining as The Dark Knight..."

    by NivekJ

    But just as great. Only Ebert can write a review like that, which balances different aspects and goals of a film. Dark Knight only made you think so much, but Watchmen? It does nothing BUT make you think, and that's a triumph of cinema this day and age. It asks you to keep your brain turned on, and never makes a moral stance of its own, but leaves it up to you. Give me another film that does that in the last 10 years, let alone a superhero film. I may not have had my ass kicked, but I had my brain kicked instead. In the head. By a hot-ass chick wearing boots. And I couldn't have been more pleased. 4 for **** outta me.

  • March 6, 2009, 12:58 p.m. CST

    You People Don't Seem to Understand Alan Moore's Position

    by The Funketeer

    He takes his name off *ALL* of his movies. I doubt he's even seen Watchmen so to say he doesn't like the movie is a misstatement. You can't like something you're not familiar with. Dave Gibbons on the other hand, HAS seen the movie and is just as much responsible for the comic as Alan Moore was.

  • March 6, 2009, 1:14 p.m. CST

    It was inferior to the Dark Knight....

    by TheWaqman

    in performances aswell. Some of the worst acting I've witnessed in awhile. Dark Knight had stellar performances from the likes of Ledger and Oldman. In this film only Haley can keep the movie afloat. Everybody else was bloody horrible. Matthew Goode was the worst choice for Ozymandias.

  • March 6, 2009, 1:16 p.m. CST

    I'm sick of this shit site...

    by TheWaqman

    all it does is talk about this shit movie. Too much promotion. And people say Avatar is overhyped here? Fuck off, Watchmen gets 20 talkbacks a day. And it attracts retards who think it will be as good as Blade Runner. I choked when I read that. If another director made this it could have been a great film. But with Snyder's shit directing it's only decent.

  • March 6, 2009, 1:23 p.m. CST

    See the difference between Ebert and Big Red?

    by This_talkback_is_on_CRAZYPILLS

    No "Chocolate covered pussy juice" esque references. Classy guy, your best frend Roger is.

  • March 6, 2009, 1:24 p.m. CST

    I am sure someone else has said this

    by hst666

    But for those of you don't grasp the concept, (good) criticism is not stating whether you like something or not. I disagree with Ebert all the time, but he articulates why he likes or dislikes something. Sometmes the reasons are technical, or sometimes they go to inferred intent. <p><p> Good criticism can help you find good stuff. I have sought works out based upon a negative review, because I understood Ebert's reasons for not liking the work and was pretty sure I would like it. Sometimes I was right, sometimes wrong.

  • March 6, 2009, 1:25 p.m. CST

    ::Book spoiler warning::

    by SpikeTBB

    Ozy caught a bullet with his bare hands. That indicates super powers to me. I wouldn't like to give it a try.

  • March 6, 2009, 1:35 p.m. CST

    Ebert's reputation precedes him like a god

    by skimn

    Pulitzer Prize, 40+ years of reviewing film, writing a goddam Russ Meyer flick..I could go on. But that doesn't make his positive review any more or less valid than a negative review. Remember he gave 3+ star positive reviews to films like Crystal Skull and Hitman. Don't validate your love of a film just because a critic, even a renowned critic, shares your opinion.

  • March 6, 2009, 1:41 p.m. CST

    If you read Ebert's review AND his blog about WATCHMEN...

    by NoDiggity

    You realize that what is blowing him away about the movie is the fact that he does NOT "get" it, but is left with the profound impression that there is something to "get". In his blog about it (where he talks about his second viewing in IMAX) he ruminates about Dr. Manhattan and Quantum physics. In that sense, it seems the movie has succeeded in replicating the original Comic book's success in creating the illusion that one has experienced something too intricate, to profound, to understand fully, an illusion that makes one feel strongly that what we've viewed is REAL in some way (as reality is incomprehensible in any complete way). What Ebert talks about it the EXPERIENCE of being involved in a hyper-complex, but ultimately knowable universe, even if that knowing is somehow out of one's grasp. <br><br> The Matrix movies managed to do this as well, to a large degree. Doesn't mean it isn't a big pile of vauge hogwash though, just that we can have fun imagining that it is NOT hogwash, for a little while.

  • March 6, 2009, 1:42 p.m. CST


    by Grievey

    It's good to know Ebert can still write a good, intelligent review.

  • March 6, 2009, 1:46 p.m. CST

    Sort of pathetic...

    by maverick68

    to see anyone idolizing a film reviewer. Seriously, we're talking about someone who watches movies and gives their personal opinion. The film industry and its worshippers tend to be pathetic at times....

  • March 6, 2009, 1:47 p.m. CST

    it's great to finally read a review not littered with typos and

    by GoodTimeBobby

  • March 6, 2009, 1:47 p.m. CST


    by werock

    Alan Moore can continue to wallow in his inflated ego and I could care less. It's a shame someone with his creativity can be so closed minded. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't watch these movie adaptations for fear of actually liking them and bruising that ego. This is the first review I've found that doesn't ring of verbose nonsense or someone with a premeditated opinion.

  • March 6, 2009, 1:48 p.m. CST

    I thought this movie was fucking brilliant

    by Cruel_Kingdom

    It's a movie that has to be seen multiple times to be fully ingested. I cannot wait for the longer director's cut on DVD.

  • March 6, 2009, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Ebert gave Spawn high ranks too!

    by WookieeLoveMachine

    Not to say Watchmen doesn't live up to the, um, hype. However, Ebert gave Spawn the movie a great review too. What a turd that film was! Any ways, I'll be seeing Watchmen in a week. Praying it doesn't suck.

  • March 6, 2009, 1:56 p.m. CST

    Watchmen's art doesn't look like shit...

    by Darth_Inedible

    You're comparing an extremely dense and formal work to today's ass-flashing digitally colored overworked 15-page crap. Full Metal Jacket's cinematography isn't shit compared to Underworld: Rise of the Lycans just because Kubrick wasn't constantly sweeping his panny around all-LoTR style on a digital boom and then tweeking every shot to high hell in post with digital color correction and CGI. Moore's Watchmen panels are some of the most beautiful ever produced in terms of mood, readability, flow and "comic cinematography".

  • March 6, 2009, 2:05 p.m. CST

    Re: Mainstream reviewers

    by skimn

    While scanning channels this morning I did come across Gene Shalit on the Today show with his critique. Looking more like a Eugene Levy parody than ever before, I wanted to punch my screen, but my love of my flat screen prevented me.

  • March 6, 2009, 2:08 p.m. CST

    No more Blade Runner comparisons

    by DoctorWho?

    I hope Watchmen is great but it will never touch the greatest film ever made. Eat it.

  • March 6, 2009, 2:10 p.m. CST

    Ebert understands the importance of visuals

    by MattmanReturns

    Film is primarily visual, and most people forget that.

  • March 6, 2009, 2:11 p.m. CST

    Was that a review or a press release?

    by drdoom_v

    Come on Roger, how much money did the studio kick you back on that review? Remember when Siskel and Ebert had a whole show dedicated to Sean Young? They basically drooled all over her calling her one of the greatest actresses of all time! You know how Roger Ebert will give a four star review to a film becuse it has an African American person in it or because it deals with interracial themes?-(no matter how contrived or poorly written and acted it is). maybe Roger is really into pooly acted and directed High School Plays. I think he should see it agin and this time when he is off the Xanax and Tylenol combo. Alan Moore was right.

  • March 6, 2009, 2:12 p.m. CST


    by MattmanReturns

    Excellent point. That whole "I don't get it, but there is something to get" thing is how I felt about Donnie Darko. I sometimes understand that movie while I watch it, and then I lose it until I watch it again.

  • March 6, 2009, 2:20 p.m. CST

    Hes given every movie 4 stars since his cancer

    by SomaShine


  • March 6, 2009, 2:48 p.m. CST

    Ebert didn't like Blade Runner when it came out

    by skimn

    Loved the visuals, didn't care for the execution of story. So stop with the Blade Runner comperisons, unless you mean: a visually arresting film that fails miserably at the box office admist bad reviews, but becomes a loved genre classic years later.

  • March 6, 2009, 2:55 p.m. CST


    by shaft478

    You're a fucking retard. Spawn was an alright movie considering the time it came out. I'd take Spawn over Dardevil, Ghost Rider, FF, or Elektra any day of the week pal. Its not Spider-Man or TDK, but its not a bad flick.

  • March 6, 2009, 2:56 p.m. CST

    Anybody who doesn't like this watchmen film

    by FuryofthefilmFan

    doesn't like film....period. There I said it.

  • March 6, 2009, 3:07 p.m. CST

    there's a lot of dicks in this talkback

    by maluquiro

    and i'm scared of them.

  • March 6, 2009, 3:08 p.m. CST

    I seriously got teary eyed when Ebert gave it 4 stars.

    by Orionsangels

    Ebert's opinion means so much to me. It's like waiting for a father's approval. If he says it's ok. Then I know it's ok.

  • March 6, 2009, 3:12 p.m. CST

    The Spirit

    by BizarroJerry

    Ebert gave it a one star review. So, he's not completely gushing in every review.<p>And I mostly like Ebert because, well, he's the only critic whose reviews I'm interested in reading.

  • March 6, 2009, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Oh My Fucking God!!!!!!!

    by skimn

    Now we will have a tally of lame films that Ebert liked, lame films that Ebert didn't like, beloved films he didn't like, beloved films he did, and on and fucking on. It's ONE MANS OPINION. Okay.<p>I enjoy his writing and his reviews as much as the next film fan. His 2 Fifty Great Films books are great reads, and his love of cinema is evident. But give it a fucking break!!!

  • March 6, 2009, 3:46 p.m. CST

    Toa, your still a moron.

    by Evangelion217

    The ending never felt like a compromise to me. It might of been changed, to make sense for the masses, but it's still pretty polarizing, and almost baffling. It still carries the emotional depth of the ending, while not feeling completely cold. It's a damn good ending, and the acting was brilliant. The only reason that you think it's a compromise, is because it's different from the book. Which makes so sense, and quit making up lies, and stating them as facts. The fact is that Roger Ebert loved this film, and he explained why. I don't think it's a great film, but it's not even a complete product yet. So with all dear respect, go fuck yourself.

  • March 6, 2009, 3:48 p.m. CST

    see Harry Ebert was also right about Quantum of Solace

    by Prossor

    with 2 stars. do not question him!

  • March 6, 2009, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Harry namedrops more than

    by JoeSixPack

    anyone I have ever heard in my life. He could have just said "Here is an interesting review by Roger Ebert" instead of "Hey, my best bud, Roger Ebert, yeah we're totally BFFs", etc.

  • March 6, 2009, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Most Excellent Ninja

    by Evangelion217

    Please get your head out of your ass, and realize that the film is not dumb down at all. Which is why it's not getting alot of rave reviews. The critics, and probably alot of people were expecting to be accessible, when it's really not. I'm not saying that you have to be a fan to enjoy this film, because there are plenty of newbies who loved it. But it is not dumb down. It's still very intelligent, thought provocking, and layered. It's way too short, because I can see that alot of scenes were cut out, which made the alternate universe feel less organic. But it is not dumb down at all. Even if the changes were made to appeal to a mass audience, they really don't do that at all.

  • March 6, 2009, 4:16 p.m. CST

    The whole "He liked this Movie so he sucks"...

    by Lyghthouse

    Or "he disliked this movie so he sucks" is a such a god damn narrow minded and childish argument. Does it really have to be all or nothing all the time? Oh, and Ebert is 100% correct about Blade Runner.

  • March 6, 2009, 4:44 p.m. CST

    my two...

    by smatt584

    I was a little let down, not by what was changed but by what was left out of the theatrical cut. Hollis' death, the prison shrink, the newsstand are all completely left aside for the extended cut and it was still over two hours. This also created my biggest gripe about the film because all these cuts really ducked up the pacing and editing. Some scenec feel rushed while others drag. I now see exactly what a lit of critics hated bring that they almost certainly don't know about the extended cuts coming. Now, more than ever I want the full watchmen experience IN THEATERS. (just in case any WB reps may be looking in ;)

  • March 6, 2009, 4:49 p.m. CST


    by smatt584

    Make it so damnit

  • March 6, 2009, 4:50 p.m. CST

    This site is turning into shit

    by howzah

    I'm so sick of the politics on this website. The ignorant far left nonsense is way out of control. More movie stuff, less extreme liberalism please. Also, just because you're married doesn't mean we want to see any updates by your wife. This is becoming ridiculous. AICN is becoming some sick ego trip. It's more about Harry and his politics than his love for movies these days.

  • March 6, 2009, 5:04 p.m. CST

    annoyed observation

    by coldharbor

    alot (sic) DNE 'a lot'... would of (sic) DNE 'would have'... Typing alot (sic) and would of (sic) repeatedly lessens one's credibility...just saying...

  • March 6, 2009, 5:10 p.m. CST

    I know snyder made a great watchmen film

    by smatt584

    We just haven't seen it yet. If anything, this has just whetted my appite for the film's true form. Although this will be much more than what they did with Darko, there's another 20-30 minutes here before the black freighter even comes into it!

  • March 6, 2009, 5:51 p.m. CST

    My earlier comments on Ebert have been retracted...

    by JoePaLives that I've read his follow-up review on his blog: His second review is so poignant and beautiful. I wish I'd never read the first, but I understand that it takes us into his journey of trying to understand the film.

  • March 6, 2009, 6:05 p.m. CST

    I agree

    by landosystem

    with most of what he says, well written review, and I also can't wait to go back and have the experience again, and try to understand a bit more.

  • March 6, 2009, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Something I love about Ebert

    by skimn

    He will see a film more than once, and view it accordingly. He has in the past, seen films at festivals, then viewed again at the time of release, and sometimes again before submitting a review. That is a love of film.

  • March 6, 2009, 8:56 p.m. CST


    by Alex Mack

    What kind of gay fanboys are you that like this film? First you get all excited like giggling schoolgirls over the movie "300" which features big, sweaty, muscular men half naked wearing speedos, and now you fanboys get all excited over a movie that features full frontal male nudity!!!!!! YOU'RE SO FREAKING GAY!!! If you're gay then just come out and admit it! Seriously, how can any straight guy watch this stuff. At least "Street Fighter" had that hot ass Kristen Kruenyk or whatever the hell her name is.

  • March 6, 2009, 8:59 p.m. CST


    by Alex Mack

    The movie was so bad, that alot of people (non fanboys) actually walked out! And this was in Burbank. Hahahaaha! Now that was funny.

  • March 6, 2009, 9:03 p.m. CST


    by skoolbus

    Lot of copyin' and pastin' goin' on here.

  • March 6, 2009, 9:06 p.m. CST

    Rog, Rog, Rog

    by padraig

    Ebert has been around forever, and I've seen him dating back to Siskel & Ebert At the Movies on local Chicago TV. He's an excellent writer and very perceptive when reviewing artistic, well-made drama. But he does. not. get. genre. movies. Never has. Never will. (Siskel did, I miss him horribly.) The most memorable S&E I ever saw was after I went to see "Halloween II, Season of the Witch" cold on an impulse. One of the most honest-to-God unredeemable movies ever made. Then I watched S&E wondering how they'd savage it. Ebert did his review first and to my shock gave it an absolute rave, the acting, the writing, he was genuinely scared, etc. etc. He ends up and turns to Siskel. Siskel sat silently for a good five seconds. Then he said, "Many years from now, I will still be reminding you that you liked this movie." End of review. RIP Gene. And Roger? Let the other guy do the genre flicks.

  • March 6, 2009, 9:41 p.m. CST

    Halloween II Season of the Witch?

    by Prossor

    Did the Hospital double as an evil mask factory?

  • March 6, 2009, 10:07 p.m. CST

    Alex Mack

    by Unfilmable_Blue_Dong

    Repressed gay, much? Guess huge, erect, veiny rigid cocks has a real effect on you, huh?<p> God, just think about how awful it is for these people to stick those cocks in your face like that! <p> Doesn't it make you really agitated and tense to have those cocks thrust at you like that? cocks!

  • March 6, 2009, 10:18 p.m. CST

    padraig, it was halloween 3

    by bacci40

    and despite your best protestations, it was a good movie<P> why? cuz fucking kids going trick or treating were gonna die...and who doesnt want to kill them...fooking brilliant<p> that movie calls for a remake...only this time, dont call the stations to get the commercials off the air...let all those fucking kids heads turn into snakes and more day till halloween, halloween, more day till halloween, silver shamrock<p> ebert was right, siskel was can eat shit

  • March 6, 2009, 10:35 p.m. CST


    by bacci40

    fuck you, you wingnut bitch<P> wingnuttery is failed philosophy<p> you fucks destroyed this country...its our turn now to try and fix your mess<p> so begone, its all liberal, all the time now...bring on the commie wenches

  • March 6, 2009, 11:19 p.m. CST

    There's a difference Harry...

    by Weapon M

    ..See the difference here is that he has never read the original. He seems more infatuated with Dr. Manhattan then anything else. I dont buy his review, because he is looking at it as a movie unto itself. It may not be married to the graphic novel-- but it should be married to its "WORD"-- or the creators of the film should be married to the vow they made to everyone to make the most honest to the graphic novel possible. Now come on--- it was possible to keep the ending true to the graphic novel. Snyder is not trying if he has to change it the way he did. It's not as simplistic as he makes it out to be. I think they are making Alan Moore look like a genius because it seems they dont understand his message. and its not just the questions that this amazing story asks us.. it's HOW they are asked. Sometimes its not the question, but its the manner in which the questions are proposed. To view something not truly understood, at a different vantage point may lead us to different conclusions.. This movie gave us the same questions from the typical pop-culture platform which we have all read from already. We didn't see the Watchmen in it's full glory, and I'm disappointed because it was missed because of arrogance.

  • March 6, 2009, 11:44 p.m. CST

    Alex Mack if you have to ask that.

    by Orionsangels

    You're not a geek. You just don't like seeing us happy.

  • March 7, 2009, 1:17 a.m. CST

    Second piece is a lot better than the first

    by WickedJacob

    Looks Ebert is liking Watchmen as much as he liked "Dark City" (which is to say he likes it a whole hell of a lot).

  • March 7, 2009, 8:55 a.m. CST

    So let's get this straight, Evangelion

    by The Tao of Joe

    Because the film that's been in production for years, advertised for many months, and released in theaters across the country this week is "not complete," I should hold off on any criticism I might have on a film that is taking viewers' money and giving them inferior product against the reputation of my favorite book? You talk about people with their heads up their asses, but my man, but how would you know, what with your prostate staring you dead in the eye? If there is a 'wonder-cut' of this film out there that will delete or reduce the Owl Ship sex scene, tell viewers what the New Frontiersman is, and restore the ominous, foreboding tone to that didactic, whiny-ass cat fight you argue is a suitable finale, I'll see it and review it as such. It worked in the favor of films like "The Abyss" and "Kingdom of Heaven." Not so much for movies like "King Arthur," "Babylon A.D.," and "Alexander." We must review films for what they are when we see them, not what we hope they might become during some future video release date. To do that would be almost as dumb as taking the best line from "Watchmen" and giving it to Laurie to say at a time when it doesn't fucking matter.

  • March 7, 2009, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Gee I wonder why

    by MarceloAbans

    I never come here. gg nubs

  • March 7, 2009, 1:48 p.m. CST

    Should I read before I see?

    by WickedJester

    In your honest opinions, someone who has little-to-no experience with Watchmen should read the novel first or see the movie? <br><br>Side note, is the 'Motion Comic' an adequate replacement for the novel?<br><br>I really plan on doing both, I'm just torn which order to do it in...

  • March 7, 2009, 2:42 p.m. CST

    The second article

    by scors54

    Ebert's analysis in the second article posted is really great, I think. The idea of the imperfect god and the even more imperfect demi-gods who nonetheless are the "Watchmen" in all of mythology is as ancient as at least the Greeks. Having opted for a need for some ultra perfect deity figure in the relatively newer monotheistic religions, this retroactive mythilogy, created by a secular society in the guise of fictional "super" heroes (at least in their feats if not in their actual powers) plays out prefectly, if nihilistically, in "Watchmen". the ending's concept, whether tentacled or not, dates back at least to the Outer Limits episode "Agents of Fear" with Robert Culp, as another poster mentioned in the dedicated WM talkback.Like ancient deity related mytholoogy, this entire view sees we humans as selfish, venal, malleable pawns in the chess game of the gods, sort of like the book of Job in the Bible. As such, A.O. Scott's criticism in The NY Times is easily dismissed. Watchmen was never intended to be a rumination of some slavagable, uplifting element of humanity--quite the opposite. Nor was it ever intended to present some clear cut moral compass for the "heroes", again, quite the opposite. It's nihilism, pure and simple--accept it, reject it or whatever, but its brilliance and unflinching critique of the human race and its definition of "hero" is undeniable. And, yeah, as close as it could possibly be, the film was great. If you choose not to enjoy it for what it is,that's fine--just don't project your need for misery on others.

  • March 7, 2009, 10:57 p.m. CST


    by scors54

    ...I meant "Archiects of Fear".

  • March 8, 2009, 12:24 a.m. CST


    by DELCASTILLOpartdeux

    I suggest you see the movie first, and then read the comic. The comic has so much more than the film, you will enjoy both if you first watch the movie, and then rediscover everything with all the stuff thats in the comic and not in the movie. And the motion comic is faithful to the graphic novel page by page. So it is an acceptable replacement, it depends if you prefer reading or looking and listening. Think of it as an audio book of the novel with moving pictures. The only problem is that its narrated all by the same man voice, and seeing laurie speak with a man voice can be distracting.

  • March 8, 2009, 12:27 a.m. CST

    Tao of joe

    by DELCASTILLOpartdeux

    Jeez, loosen up man. Accept that people can have different opinions. I've been a fan of the book for years, and i liked the movie. It was actually better than i expected. I agree with ebert's writings after his second viewing. Does that make me stupid according to you?

  • March 8, 2009, 11:40 a.m. CST

    We haven't seen Roger Ebert become a fanboy like this since.....

    by Evangelion217

    Either "Spiderman 2", or "Dark City." Yes, he loved "TDK" and gave it a rave review. But he never went nuts like this. lol! :)

  • March 8, 2009, 9:35 p.m. CST

    My review - loved it!!

    by Ivan_Mtl

    I really have to scratch my head in wonder when I saw some of the more negative reviews for the Watchman. The following is the review I wrote at in response to these so-called critics... As a fan of comic books, there is absolutely no question that this is THE BEST adaptation of a comic book/graphic novel ever committed to screen. The director, Zack Snyder, literally used the book as his storyboards and you can see his respect for the source material in every frame of the picture. The ending, though slightly changed, is actually an improvement over the original Outer Limits inspired plot (and look for a tip of the hat to the TV series in one of the final scenes of the movie). I will agree that the movie is NOT intended for a younger audience. Also if you are someone that has absolutely no attention span from years of watching music videos, reality TV and bad sitcoms, then you should probably avoid this movie as you would a public library. For the rest of you, see why Time magazine rated the Watchmen graphic novel as one of the top 100 novels of all time.

  • March 9, 2009, 10:43 p.m. CST

    that review brought a tear

    by PakoDoom

    i've been hearing a lot of crap from people i don't care to listen to.. about walking out on this movie, about not understanding it. people are so used to having a plot delivered on a silver platter that they don't know how to interpret something and derive meaning anymore. i have yet to see the film, waiting until the distance between me and my significant other is small enough to hold her while we watch it. because i know from reading the graphic novel that it is a good enough story that i'll want to wait to see it alongside someone who will appreciate it with me.