Disclaimer: I read and enjoyed the Watchmen graphic novel a year ago and am therefore not completely un-biased. With that out of the way, on to the review.
If your antennae are moderately attuned to the glossy world of pop culture, chances are you have at least heard of the Watchmen film. If you are well versed in the world of comic books (sorry, graphic novels) then your relationship to Alan Moore’s and David Gibbon’s tome is in all probability similar to that of a fundamentalist Christian to his Bible. If you are acquainted with neither, now’s your chance to see what is considered by many to be one of the most important literary (or faux-literary) works of the late 20th century, minus one giant squid. But not so fast! Before you head on over to Fandango, read this review.
In the wake of his smash hit 300, an adaptation of Frank Miller’s ultra-violent Spartan epic, some have hailed director Zach Snyder as a visionary. Regardless of whether he deserves such a title, Watchmen establishes Snyder as a filmmaker with a distinctive style. Recurring motifs include showers of blood, limbs soaring through the air in slow motion and sex scenes that make HBO’s late night porn shows look like masterpieces. Unfortunately, what worked well for 300 does not lend itself well to every film. I think it’s fair to say that Watchmen is not plausible; we’re talking about vigilantes with inexplicable martial arts prowess dressing up in Halloween costumes and fighting crime, not to mention a naked blue man with the power to rearrange matter. However, part of what made the graphic novel so revolutionary was the sense that if the characters did in fact exist, history would take a similar course. With a keen political awareness and eye for satire, Moore conveys a sophisticated political message in the context of a superhero story, forcing his audience to consider weighty issues like nuclear proliferation, anarchy and government regulation at the same time as they watch a man in an owl costume kick the crap out of thugs.
The premise of The Watchmen is that superheroes start popping up in the 1960s; the thing is none of them actually have superpowers. That is, until a freak accident that gives one man the power to alter matter (basically, he is turned into a god). He helps the U.S win the Vietnam War and as a result, Nixon is elected for more terms. When the public gets fed up with vigilantes taking the law into their own hands, superheroism is officially banned and the majority of superheroes hang up their suits. However, a murder in their ranks calls attention to a conspiracy that threatens millions. Ironically, Snyder radically alters the nature of the narrative while retaining almost all of the original dialogue (some of which should have been revised) and events by turning every act of violence into a painstakingly choreographed celebration of blood and severed limbs. As a result, the audience is compelled to shift their attention away from the message and onto the spectacle.
Visually, Watchmen is a stunning film. One cannot help but admire the effort that went into replicating the aesthetics of the graphic novel. The casting is also well done. Jackie Earle Haley nails Rorschach. Jeffrey Dean Morgan is similarly excellent as the tough-as-nails, amoral Comedian. The rest of the cast, with the exception of Malin Akerman as Silk Specter (she should consider acting classes) is solid. Matthew Goode turns in a satisfactory performance as Adrian Veidt, even if he comes across as a bit too stereotypically villainous.
The real problems with the Watchmen film are related to the plot. It is understandable that Snyder would alter the conclusion (what works in a comic book does not necessarily work on screen), but he fails to come up with an alternative that makes any sense. He also deprives the narrative of any suspense it might have by making the murderer very easy to identify in the opening scene. The viewer should be surprised to discover the identity of the protagonist; instead, it is painfully obvious. This does not detract from the film as much as Snyder’s fixation on stylized violence, which is a betrayal of the graphic novel’s deeper intellectual meaning. This does not, however, make Watchmen a bad movie, but simply unremarkable. If one does not have an interest in superheroes or violent action movies, he or she should pick up the graphic novel.
If your antennae are moderately attuned to the glossy world of pop culture, chances are you have at least heard of the Watchmen film. If you are well versed in the world of comic books (sorry, graphic novels) then your relationship to Alan Moore’s and David Gibbon’s tome is in all probability similar to that of a fundamentalist Christian to his Bible. If you are acquainted with neither, now’s your chance to see what is considered by many to be one of the most important literary (or faux-literary) works of the late 20th century, minus one giant squid. But not so fast! Before you head on over to Fandango, read this review.
In the wake of his smash hit 300, an adaptation of Frank Miller’s ultra-violent Spartan epic, some have hailed director Zach Snyder as a visionary. Regardless of whether he deserves such a title, Watchmen establishes Snyder as a filmmaker with a distinctive style. Recurring motifs include showers of blood, limbs soaring through the air in slow motion and sex scenes that make HBO’s late night porn shows look like masterpieces. Unfortunately, what worked well for 300 does not lend itself well to every film. I think it’s fair to say that Watchmen is not plausible; we’re talking about vigilantes with inexplicable martial arts prowess dressing up in Halloween costumes and fighting crime, not to mention a naked blue man with the power to rearrange matter. However, part of what made the graphic novel so revolutionary was the sense that if the characters did in fact exist, history would take a similar course. With a keen political awareness and eye for satire, Moore conveys a sophisticated political message in the context of a superhero story, forcing his audience to consider weighty issues like nuclear proliferation, anarchy and government regulation at the same time as they watch a man in an owl costume kick the crap out of thugs.
The premise of The Watchmen is that superheroes start popping up in the 1960s; the thing is none of them actually have superpowers. That is, until a freak accident that gives one man the power to alter matter (basically, he is turned into a god). He helps the U.S win the Vietnam War and as a result, Nixon is elected for more terms. When the public gets fed up with vigilantes taking the law into their own hands, superheroism is officially banned and the majority of superheroes hang up their suits. However, a murder in their ranks calls attention to a conspiracy that threatens millions. Ironically, Snyder radically alters the nature of the narrative while retaining almost all of the original dialogue (some of which should have been revised) and events by turning every act of violence into a painstakingly choreographed celebration of blood and severed limbs. As a result, the audience is compelled to shift their attention away from the message and onto the spectacle.
Visually, Watchmen is a stunning film. One cannot help but admire the effort that went into replicating the aesthetics of the graphic novel. The casting is also well done. Jackie Earle Haley nails Rorschach. Jeffrey Dean Morgan is similarly excellent as the tough-as-nails, amoral Comedian. The rest of the cast, with the exception of Malin Akerman as Silk Specter (she should consider acting classes) is solid. Matthew Goode turns in a satisfactory performance as Adrian Veidt, even if he comes across as a bit too stereotypically villainous.
The real problems with the Watchmen film are related to the plot. It is understandable that Snyder would alter the conclusion (what works in a comic book does not necessarily work on screen), but he fails to come up with an alternative that makes any sense. He also deprives the narrative of any suspense it might have by making the murderer very easy to identify in the opening scene. The viewer should be surprised to discover the identity of the protagonist; instead, it is painfully obvious. This does not detract from the film as much as Snyder’s fixation on stylized violence, which is a betrayal of the graphic novel’s deeper intellectual meaning. This does not, however, make Watchmen a bad movie, but simply unremarkable. If one does not have an interest in superheroes or violent action movies, he or she should pick up the graphic novel.