Mick LaSalle vs. A.O. Scott on Watchmen

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


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.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest