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.

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

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