Critic Review - The New Republic

[T]there are problems both with the tale, which was an awful lot more subversive 20 years ago than it is today, and the telling, which in contrast to Moore's radical experimentation is disappointingly staid and straightforward.

March 6, 2009 Full Review Source: The New Republic | Comments (4)
The New Republic
Top Critic IconTop Critic



Charles Snyder

Those who can,direct or act...Those who can't do either of the foregoing, it seems become critics...I am 70 years old,am not a comic book fan, but have seen the movie...It is unlike anything I have ever seen.....BUT it moves quickly,
is one of the best visual films ever,and
is cerebral....I think the latter point is missed here..One has to pay attention to detail, get a grasp for the characters(via excellent flashbacks) and understand that all is not black & white),except for the philosophy of the
superheroes(minus Dr. Manhatten).The latter are a partial group of "Dirty Harrys" whom one has to respect for helping preserve the peace...Every negative critic had almost the same critique of the "300"....Regular people will like & support this film....
See you when the revenues are finally tallied.....Best, Charles E.

Mar 6 - 06:54 PM


Cory P.

cedsnyder, you basically summed up everything I was thinking! Thank you for that! It's almost common place now for "reviewers" (even those you have an obvious distaste for this kind of film) to step on this genre anyway possible (and noticebly with 80% of the "top reviewers" who are obsessed (wierdly) with the art-house, low budget foriegn film or the cheesy love story), It's obvious (wiether payed or bribed) that there is a contingent~like hate against all things science fiction or fantasy. And it's plain as day. It's excellently highlighted by the amount of "highly regarded" reviewers ****ting on this AMAZING film..and it's frustratingly sad..But I'm glad that REAL publications and sites and reviewers such as PREMIERE, ROLLING STONE, EMPIRE, and ROGER EBERT(god bless him for such an amazing review) know a classic and fantastic experience when seen. Because those are the reviews people will care about..

Mar 6 - 10:49 PM


Alex Barriga

Give cedsnyder props. The old dude knows his stuff.

Mar 7 - 03:53 AM

Ben A.

Ben Ayoung-Chee

I couldn't agree more with this critic's statement.

The film, whilst mostly accurate (aside from a key change at the end and a few minor details) was more like a recital of the book's lines than an exercise in performing them. Snyder, was was similar to 300 (which was entertaining, if banal), seemed to take the safe, lazy route of directing by simply sticking lukewarmly and straightforwardly to the script - to the extent that the film itself is simply a soulless video photocopy of the text. Rather than injecting any real emotion, angst and spontaneity into the portrayal of the work - Snyder seems to put much more flair into the visuals and action sequences - with the only acting saving grace being Rorschach.

In short, this movie has the potential to disappoint both the regular moviegoer and all but the most biased of fans.

I can see why Alan Moore wanted nothing to do with it - and will always regret that they didn't get a more talented director to do better justice to a work, that in all honesty - may not be meant for the big screen.

Mar 7 - 12:25 PM

Find us on:                 
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile