‘Watchmen’ pulls in $55 million

March 08, 2009 | 7:44 p.m.

David Pierson at the Los Angeles Times has a rundown of the numbers for “Watchmen,” which opened on more screens than any R-rated film in history:

Superhero blockbuster “Watchmen” dominated the weekend box office by grossing an estimated $55.7 million, scoring the biggest opening of any film this year.

The much-anticipated adaptation of Alan Moore’s graphic novel of the same name cements the draw of director Zack Snyder, who also directed the hit “300.”

Although there was some industry expectation that it would do so, “Watchmen” fell short of matching the $70.9 million that “300” took in during its opening weekend in March 2007.

The question now is whether the $150-million “Watchmen” will carry past Snyder’s dedicated fan base in the coming weeks to win a broader audience.


More in: Uncategorized, Watchmen


2 Responses to ‘Watchmen’ pulls in $55 million

  1. John says:

    It doesn't matter what films they put in theaters; for the price the theater charges you would be smarter to wait and buy it on blu ray DVD.

  2. K. Castro says:

    What “Watchmen” grossed this past weekend doesn’t interest me; but I’ll tell you why it WON’T be among the top grossing films next weekend: this is a very badly made movie.
    I am a BIG fan of well-done sci-fi, fantasy and “other-worldly” genres of film. Bladerunner, Lord of the Rings, Narnia, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Brazil, Alien, Excaliber, etc, all were GREAT movies not only because of the scifi/fantasy aspect, but because they had great plot development and great characters one could identify with. Indeed, the scifi/fantasy aspect of these films was secondary…
    “Watchmen” was flawed in a big way, because throughout the course of the movie, the characters were developed in such a way, that by the time the movie ended, the viewer didn’t care one way or another if they lived or died (exception being Jackie Earle Haley’s character, whom we needed to see more of; and Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s character, who needed more interaction with the other characters in the movie to merit full interest).
    Another issue with the movie concerns its slogging along for almost two hours before anything actually happens. I mean, what’s with all the backstory? Interesting effects, but to what point? And, if you’re going to create an alternative history of the world, you might explain yourself upfront as to why you’re doing so….it’s a great movie technique, but if you just throw it out there w/ no backstory, well, it’s a bit sloppy.
    Lastly, in a movie like this, you need to fully develop your VILLAIN!! The bad guy is shown in the first five minutes doing his bad-guy thing, then he virtually disappears for over an hour! No development, no interactions, and really no search by the “good guys” throughout this hour-long interlude. When he does appear, unmasked and known for the evil that he’s done, at the end of the movie, the audience is left what a “WTF” inquiry? I mean, you need to be able to have a character you want to root against: Darth Vader, the Alien monster, the Predator, Tim Roth in “Rob Roy”, Nurse Ratched, Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction….THESE are villains that merit our interest. When we finally meet up w/ Adrian Veidt at the end of the movie, we really don’t care what happens to him. His character poses no interest to us.
    I think this movie will sink like a stone next weekend; I know I’m doing my part….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

E-mail It
Powered by ShareThis