The $120 million comic book adaptation “Watchmen,” one of 2009’s most eagerly awaited films, premiered in London Monday, aiming to repeat the success of superhero hits like “Iron Man” and “The Dark Knight.” The red carpet launch of the special effects-laden action thriller is the culmination of years of to-ing and fro-ing over scripts, budgets and, finally, a legal dispute between rival Hollywood studios. Directed by Zack Snyder, whose “300″ was a box office winner in 2007, Watchmen is based on a 1986 comic book series of the same name written by Briton Alan Moore and illustrated by compatriot Dave Gibbons. As with other movies based on his stories, Moore has distanced himself from the film, which hits cinemas in Britain and the United States on March 6. Asked if Moore was likely to watch the movie, deemed “unfilmable” by some in the business, Snyder told Reuters: “Look, you know Alan has famously said ‘I don’t want anything to do with it’ and I just try and respect that as much as I can.” Watchmen is set in an alternate 1985 United States, where the “Doomsday Clock” charting U.S. tensions with the Soviet Union, is permanently set at five minutes to midnight. When one of his former colleagues is found murdered, masked vigilante Rorschach sets out to uncover a plot to kill and discredit all superheroes, both past and present. The film contains scenes of sex and violence, earning it an R rating in the United States meaning under-17s can only see it with a parent or adult guardian, limiting its commercial potential. Snyder said the success of “300,” his ultra-violent depiction of the legendary battle between Spartans and Persians at Thermopylae in 480 B.C., had given him more freedom. “I think that ‘300′ really helped us to say, okay, look, it can be rated R.” The fate of the film was in doubt until last month, when studios Warner Bros and News Corp’s Twentieth Century Fox reached a settlement in a copyright infringement dispute. Warner Bros, a unit of Time Warner Inc, produced the film, but Fox sued Warner last year to stop its release. Fox, which acquired the rights to the “Watchmen” story in 1986, claimed it had a continuing stake in the project. Warner was also behind The Dark Knight, the Batman sequel which was last year’s biggest grossing film globally with ticket sales of $1 billion.

At last … Watchmen has its first official premiere … the long-awaited big screen adaptation is finally upon us. I’ve done my best to stay away from spoilers and extended film clips mainly because I don’t want to be spoiled by what I read and see before I can see the movie for myself (plus, I’m still reading Watchmen … I need to finish it soon). That said, I’m very concerned by the mixed reviews that I have stumbled upon. Last week, I read some bits of a review written by a fan (not a “credentialed reviewer”) and it was not very complimentary. As for the “official” reviews from the media … well, they are a mix of good and worrisome:

Directed by Zack Snyder, whose “300″ was a box office winner in 2007, Watchmen is based on a 1986 comic book series of the same name written by Briton Alan Moore and illustrated by compatriot Dave Gibbons. Critics gave it mixed reviews, with several predicting approval from the hardcore comic book fan fraternity. How it plays to a wider audience, however, will be more important to its commercial prospects. “For those just watching Watchmen for the Watchmen, without any expectations or knowledge of the comic’s storyline or historical importance, this really will be a blast,” wrote Mike Ragogna in the internet newspaper The Huffington Post. But Robbie Collin, of Britain’s top-selling tabloid weekly News of the World, disagreed: “This two-and-a-half-hour wannabe pop culture epic isn’t the worst superhero movie ever made … But it is one of the most spirit-crushingly disappointing,” he said. As with other movies based on his stories, Moore has distanced himself from the film, which hits cinemas in Britain and the United States on March 6. Asked if Moore was likely to watch the movie, deemed “unfilmable” by some in the business, Snyder told Reuters: “Look, you know Alan has famously said ‘I don’t want anything to do with it’ and I just try and respect that as much as I can.”

See, I’m not so much worried about what the negative reviews say (because, honestly, many reviewers like to be negative so that they can garner a little press) but I am concerned that author Alan Moore doesn’t want “anything to do” with the film. HMM. I really believe that people are going to love it and people are going to hate it … just like every other movie ever made … and it will be up to individuals to make that determination for themselves. I am looking forward to seeing this film, not the least of which because this film promises the first fully-frontal nekkid male character — in CGI. I mean, I’m also interested in seeing this masterpiece of graphic novelness brought to life on the big screen but … CGI p33n is where it’s at ;)

[Photo credit: Wireimage; Source, Source]

Liz writes: Just got home from the premier of All My Sons, and I was thoroughly impressed. First of all, John Lithgow blew me away, and Dianne Wiest was outstanding. Patrick Wilson was totally in his element on stage, of course. And Katie Holmes actually really amazed me. It’s not easy to keep up with thespians of this caliber, and she totally held her own. Also, the staging is really minimal, so the actors really had nothing to rely on but their chops. The play’s content is really fascinating, giving them great material, and they all did a fantastic job of bringing it to life. Now on to the gossip … As expected, there was a large Scientology protest outside the theatre beforehand, blah blah blah … Tommy Boy was there, sitting exactly four rows in front of me. He was very congenial and took pictures with a few people, and the audience erupted in applause as soon as he came in to take his seat. The performance went smoothly after the initial ooh’s and ahh’s and everyone respected his privacy. Dustin Hoffman was also there, and spoke with Tom for a bit. As soon as people realized he was in the house as well, he also got a round of applause and a few camera flashes. Katie definitely was looking at Tom during their curtain calls. It was pretty cute, actually. She seemed to be kind of shy about it,and just really hoping she got approval from the audience, which she most certainly did. All in all, a great show, true Arthur Miller style, and worth it to see!

Nice! I’m glad to hear from a real person that Katie was able to hold her on stage with the other very talented players. After the jump, check out couple pics of Tom Cruise’s arrival at the theater last night, hear what he had to say about his wife’s performance and check out a couple pics of those Scientology protesters that Liz mentioned above …

As expected, hubby Tom had nothing but praise to lavish on his wife’s Broadway debut, tho he remained mum on the mass of Scientology protesters who showed up to have their say. Here are pics of Tom’s arrival:

And here are a couple pics of the protesters:

Katie Holmes kicked off previews for her Broadway debut in Arthur Miller’s All My Sons on Thursday – along with some anti-Scientology protestors. Around 20 demonstrators (many in masks) staged a protest, shouting “Free Katie” and holding signs that screamed “How many more must die?” outside the Gerald Schoenfeld Theatre in New York City. “We are not boycotting Katie, we are not boycotting the play – we are protesting Scientology. It is evil. Scientology kills people. It follows you home at night. It is perverted,” a demonstrator insisted. But Holmes and husband Tom Cruise seemed undeterred. Moments before the curtain went up, Cruise was all smiles as he entered the theater, greeting theatergoers, taking pictures and clapping. He hugged Dustin Hoffman, who was sitting a couple rows away, drawing another cheer inside the theater. “It was really powerful, I’m so proud,” Cruise was overheard saying after Holmes’ performance. (After her performance, the two dined at the stylish Angus McIndoe restaurant near the theater.) While reviews likely won’t come in until the play officially opens October 16, a writer for New York’s Daily News says Holmes “held her own” among Broadway veterans John Lithgow, Dianne Wiest and Patrick Wilson. “Holmes exuded the same lovable charm she did as Joey Potter on TV’s Dawson’s Creek,” according to the Daily News. “She shed the baggy T-shirts and jeans she has been sporting on the streets of New York for the past several months of rehearsals, revealing a rail-thin physique in ’40s-style sundresses.”

To be honest, I don’t have a burning desire to see this show for any reason other than the hoopla that has been generated by Katie’s appearance in the play. Horror of horrors, I’m not a huge Arthur Miller fan (don’t stone me, please) … but I’m really glad to hear that Katie hasn’t lost any of her Dawson’s Creek charm that made her a star all those years ago. I suppose congrats really are in order for Ms. Katie Holmes.

PS: I have to give a shout-out to the faceless Scientology protester who showed up with the sign that read RUN, KATE, RUN (AND TAKE BECK WITH YOU). That person is the winner of the day :)

[Photo credit: Splash News; Source, thanks Liz]

Katie Holmes’s Broadway premiere is just around the corner, and her play bill image is ready to go. The poster for the revival of Arthur Miller’s All My Sons simply highlights the actress, along with costars John Lithgow, Dianne Wiest and Patrick Wilson. The family drama premieres Oct. 16, with previews beginning Sept. 18.

I find it curious that Tom Cruise made it a point of contention that now that Katie is married to him that she would no longer be referred to professionally as Katie but instead as Kate Holmes. But this new poster, for her Broadway debut, clearly credits her as “Katie Holmes“. In any event, I’m not sure if the world is ready for Katie to take on Broadway but … here she comes anyways. Do any of y’all think she can handle it?

[Photo credit: Splash News; Source]