Mick LaSalle vs. A.O. Scott on Watchmen

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


In a world, where two movie critics, see the same movie, but form two, very, different, opinions, one review, holds the key…

LaSalle:
Director Zack Snyder (“300”) is beginning to look like the best thing to happen to the action movie in this decade.

Scott: I wouldn’t say that Mr. Snyder’s “Watchmen” is a good movie, though it is certainly better than the same director’s “300.”

LaSalle: One could say that the filmmakers’ strategy in “Watchmen” is to try to hold the audience’s attention, not with a great story (the story is just OK), but with great scenes.

Scott: If I had [Dr. Manhattan’s enhanced temporal perspective], the 2 hours 40 minutes of Zack Snyder’s grim and grisly excursion into comic-book mythology might not have felt quite so interminable.

LaSalle: [Snyder] had a strong advantage going into “Watchmen,” an audacious adaptation of the graphic novel of the same name.

Scott: There are times that the filmmakers seem to have used [the original] book less as an inspiration than as a storyboard.

LaSalle: Advisory: This movie contains simulated sex.

Scott: “Watchmen” features this year’s hands-down winner of the bad movie sex award, superhero division: a moment of bliss that takes place on board Nite Owl’s nifty little airship, accompanied by Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah.”

LaSalle: The viewer has been infused with a sense of life on earth as chaotic and hopeless.

Scott: Perhaps there is some pleasure to be found in regressing into this belligerent, adolescent state of mind. But maybe it’s better to grow up.

LaSalle walks away, dejected. Fade to black.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate