Movie Review: Watchmen (2009)


Watchmen (2009) 
Starring: Malin Akerman, Billy Crudup, Matthew Goode, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Patrick Wilson, Carla Gugino

Directed By: Zack Snyder

The first thing I want to know about a review of the new Watchmen movie is whether or not the reviewer has read the original graphic novel on which it is based. I need to know if the reviewer is basing their opinion solely on how it works as a film, or if the reviewer is comparing the film to the comic (consciously or subconsciously). In that spirit, I’ll fill you in on my level of experience when it comes to Watchmen: I’ve read the original series created by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons a few times, including a re-reading a couple of days before seeing the film. When it comes to the comic, I have no original opinions to share: basically, I agree with most everyone that it represents the very best the medium has to offer, and reading it for the first time well over a decade ago changed both what I came to expect from comics and how I read them.

That said, I’m no ├╝ber-fanboy who thinks the original text is sacrosanct and is insulted on behalf of Alan Moore by the very thought of a Hollywood adaptation of his work (Moore long ago decided he wants no part of adaptations of his work, deciding the medium incompatible with comics after being burned with a couple of bad adaptations of previous work). I enjoyed the 2005 film adaptation of V for Vendetta, and felt that if properly respected, there’s no reason why a good Watchmen film couldn’t be made. Sure, things would be lost in translation, as the comic was as much about the medium of superhero comics as it was about these particular superheros, but that’s true any time you adapt a story from one medium to another. I was prepared to allow for changes as long as the main ideas and themes of the story remained intact. Honestly, despite how much is written about how unforgiving fanboys are over the minutiae of their worlds, I think the whole thing is either exaggerated, or representative of only a small minority of comic book fans. As long as filmmakers treat the characters and stories with respect, most comic book fans have no problem with changes like Spider-Man having organic webshooters or Storm being an original member of the X-Men.

Still, despite having some anticipation for this film, I can’t say that I’ve been looking forward to it for years. I was fine with the comic just being a comic, and haven’t exactly been waiting for Hollywood to come along and validate its existence. I’m a huge film fan, but I don’t think it’s the superior medium. I don’t need my personal favourites to become fodder for the general public, so if a Watchmen movie was never made, I wouldn’t think it a great loss.

Going in, I’d say my outlook toward the film was cautiously optimistic. I purposely kept my expectation levels in check (as much as possible), but made sure to enjoy the preceding hype for what it was. Whether or not the film ended up being any good, it was fun to see so many online discussions about the book and characters pop up, or experience the fun little pieces of viral marketing that boded well for the film’s attempts to recreate the iconic imagery from the book, or even just to take in a few Watchmen related spoofs. Sure, Zack Snyder wasn’t my first choice of director for a potential Watchmen film (or second choice, or a choice I would’ve made at all), but I had to give him credit for fighting the battles to get it made, set it in the 80s, and other little touches that showed that he respected the work (after all, I may not have liked 300, but I did feel that it was a pretty exacting adaptation… of a pretty dumb comic).

So how did Snyder do? To start with the good news, his at-times slavish devotion to the source material led to scenes that leapt off the page and on to the screen, be it Dr. Manhattan’s origin or Rorschach attempting to avoid capture. It was thrilling to see these iconic images spring to life in two-dimensions on a 50-foot IMAX screen, and enough to warm the cockles of even the most cynical fanboy’s heart. Snyder is an adept visualist, an ability put to good use in the film’s bravura title sequence, where he takes iconic moments in America’s history, and inserts the characters of this world, adeptly establishing the world and history of Watchmen in a creative way that is not borrowed from the book.

In terms of the cast, there are some good performances on display, with Jackie Earle Haley standing out in particular as the grim Rorschach. He’s the highlight of the film, and can be placed in the pantheon of perfectly cast roles in comic book movies, and is probably the best reason to go see the film. Patrick Wilson is solid as the film’s emotional centre, bringing a humanity to the film that is largely missing from its two stand-out characters in Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan. Billy Crudup bring the calm, distant attitude of Dr. Manhattan to life, while Jeffrey Dean Morgan brings charisma to the morally reprehensible Comedian.

On the flip side, Malin Akerman and Matthew Goode are pretty bad as Silk Spectre II and Ozymandias respectively. Neither can overcome the Alan Moore purple prose that populates David Hayter and Alex Tse‘s screenplay, giving flat line readings that fail to imbue either character with any depth. Unless she’s in her tight latex costume (or immediately out of it), Akerman barely registers at all, which is a major disservice to one of the key emotional journeys of the book. Worse is Goode’s one-note performance that telegraphs the film’s ending when greater ambiguity was called for. And as much as it pains me to say it, Carla Gugino is hit and miss as the original Silk Spectre, although a lot of the misses can be blamed either on Akerman, whom she shares many scenes with, or the make-up department, whose attempted aging of Gugino was really poorly done, particularly when viewed on a 50-foot screen.

Which brings us to the bad news. It’d be unfair to pin all the flaws of the film on Akerman and Goode, as their struggles would’ve easily been overshadowed in a better film. As much credit as Snyder gets for having the stones to finally get a Watchmen movie made, it still doesn’t mean he was the right choice for the job. He’s an adrenalin junkie action director, which works great when he sticks to speeding up zombies or greasing up Spartans to fight in front of green screens, but not as well when telling one of the most dense and complicated stories in the history of comicdom. When not assaulting the audience with an overbearing score and soundtrack, Snyder ups the levels of violence that were already fairly significant in the book, and needlessly extends fight scenes in a film that was already stretched to its limits with a 2 hour and 43 minute running time. While making sure that he got the right shots and moments from the series, Snyder neglected to get the right tone. Too often the heroes of the film seem bad ass, when they should seem disturbed and pathetic.

In many ways, Snyder is guilty of the same crimes the majority of the comic book community committed following the release of the 12 issue Watchmen mini-series from 1986-87 (along with the 1986 release of Frank Miller’s seminal The Dark Knight Returns). Instead of trying to tell stories of greater sophistication and depth, the comics world decided that the lessons of Watchmen and DKR were to create darker characters and inject more “mature” themes into the world of superheroes.

But the biggest problem with Watchmen the movie is the same problem that infects most film adaptations of longer books: in order to get all the story into an acceptable running time (even one this long), the stories tend to be reduced to merely plot. In this way, Snyder is no different than prestige picture directors adapting literary classics. The film feels like a collection of scenes and plot developments, mashed into one another without the necessary time to develop its characters or invest us in the developments. To squeeze in the dense plotting of the book, the flavour is left out. Scenes that needed a few more minutes to breathe aren’t given the time to do so, and threads that connect one development to another are sometimes left out. This is what kept me from truly embracing the film, in that I never felt comfortable enough with it to embrace it. The other flaws, be it subpar acting from some of the leads, the oppressively loud score, or Snyder’s by now signature slo-mo action scenes would’ve been mere annoyances if the tone of the film was properly established.

The plan is to release a director’s cut with another hour of footage, mixing in footage that will appear in the forthcoming Tales of the Black Freighter DVD release, presumably along with some of the connecting scenes that are absent in the theatrical release, so perhaps this issue will be addressed then. For now, all I can judge is the theatrical cut, which at times felt like there were “insert scene here” moments that took me out of the film. It’s not that Watchmen is a bad film, there was some truly thrilling moments and enough of the original work to be worthwhile. But when you’re adapting perhaps the greatest achievement in the history of a medium, merely “worthwhile” equates to “disappointing”. There’s enough right with this film that I look forward to watching the extended version on blu-ray when it comes out, but not enough that I have any desire to see the theatrical cut again.

3/5

Related:
Movie Review: 300 (2007)
Movie Review: V for Vendetta (2006)
List: Top 20 Comic Book Movies of All-Time

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Movie Review: Watchmen (2009)

  1. I thought they did a great job adapting the book and was very pleased with it. I am also going to go on record saying that the movie ending is better than the book ending (squid vs manhattan).

    I disagree with your comments about Goode’s portrayal of Ozymandias telegraphing the ending, as I saw it with two people who had not read the book and neither so it coming. It might be a case of knowing what was going to happen and seeing the clues.

    Looking forward to the director’s cut though myself..

    • SPOILERS! SPOILERS! OMG SPOILERS!

      I thought that the movie ending was better for a movie, as the psychic squid would’ve been ridiculous, but I’m not saying necessarily that it’s better. Both are good for their mediums, and a change was definitely necessary for the adaptation. On the one hand, the crazy, psychic squid thing worked well for the book because it brought in other elements to the mystery (incorporating the missing artists including the Black Freighter writer). On the other… it’s a crazy, psychic squid.

      I thought the idea of using Dr. Manhattan as the catalyst was very smart, and the movie fixed one major issue that I felt the comic messed up, in that they had the Dr. Manhattan effect attack the US AND the Soviet Union. In the comic, it’s never explained exactly why the Soviets would respond to an attack on their enemy in a spirit of harmony, rather than taking advantage of the momentary weakness of their opponent. Yes, the shared enemy thing was there, but that doesn’t completely work. Saddam Hussein responded to 9/11 by saying that the US was getting what they deserve, so I’m not sure why the Soviets would suddenly be so understanding.

      However, I didn’t like that the film had Ozymandias attack 5 or 6 cities, which is too much overkill and makes him more like a supervillain than a hero driven to extremes. Attacking New York and Moscow? Understandable using his logic. Even a third neutral site would make sense (thus making it seem like DM was attacking Earth as a whole, rather than simply the two superpowers). But 6? Emblematic of Snyder’s overaggressive nature. A worse mistake is that Moscow was attacked moments before New York. Wouldn’t Moscow interpret an attack by Dr. Manhattan as a sign of U.S. aggression and release their warheads? For this to be successful, New York would have to be the first victim, not the last.

      As for Goode telegraphing his intent: I don’t mean to say that it telegraphs his final solution, but more that his aloof nature and affected accent come off as movie villain. I don’t think there’s much of a shock when he’s revealed as “the bad guy”, because he never comes off as much of a good guy. In the comics, he seems more genial, whereas in the film, he comes off more as a prick.

      If you want to get more into spoiler discussion, feel free. I was going to add a spoiler-laden addendum to this post, but felt it was already long as it is.

  2. I think the biggest mistake that Snyder made was leaving out Ozymandias’s joy as he realizes he was succesful in his plan. There definitely should have been a tearful “I did it”. I felt that one scene would definitely make Ozy come off as a little more sympathetic, showing that he truly believed in what he was doing. But that’s just me…

    As for Moscow being attacked before New York in the movie, was that just because they showed Moscow getting blown up first or was thre something to show a difference in time for the attacks (I can’t remember).

    • When Ozy was showing the results of his work, he had several screens focused on different cities. All of them had clocks that had already struck zero accept for New York, which was counting down the final seconds (bringing us to the scene showing the “bomb” go off in New York).

      Oh, and here’s a spoiler-filled complaint about something else: worst scene in the movie? The second love scene with Dan and Laurie. Not only did it feature an intrusive soundtrack choice (Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah”), but it was too stagey and soft-core. The scene should’ve been about passionate, animalistic sex, not slow motion, arched back lovemaking. The point of the scene is how Dan Dreiberg is sexually aroused by donning his costume and adventuring again, not that he and Laurie are in love. Also, Archie’s spitting out flames as metaphor for ejaculation came off even worse on film than it did in the book.

  3. I liked the use of Hallelujah in the movie if for nothing else than it was the first time I can remember anyone using the song in the correct context.

    • I didn’t have a problem so much with the usage as much as I did with the volume of the song within the scene (which was a problem with all of the music in the film), which was overpowering. Also, there were too many songs, which led to scenes feeling even more smashed up against when another (one song would quickly transition into the next, instead of naturally building within a scene). Obviously this is a problem with the truncated nature of the theatrical cut, but a problem that should’ve been addressed.

      Funny note regarding “Hallelujah”: on one comment board, someone posted that they hated that they used a crappy cover of the song. Cover! Instant fail. Hey I prefer the Jeff Buckley version too (although not in this context), but at least I know it’s the cover, and Cohen is the originator.

  4. Pingback: March Recommendations « Critically Speaking

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s