03.09.09
Review: “Watchmen”
Being unfamiliar with the source material, with a vague understanding but nothing beyond what I’ve picked up from conversations with detractors and avid aficionados of what is oft labeled the “greatest graphic novel of all time,” my approach to Zack Snyder’s “Watchmen” was one of immense curiosity and little else. As such, my reaction to it and my opinion of it is one of indifference and the blame for that lies squarely between Snyder and myself. My admiration for the film began and ended with the opening credit sequence and drifted off into an alternate universe, leaving little by means of an impression behind after that.
With Snyder’s obsession with detail and an unwavering desire to render his adaptations as visually striking as possible – more cartoon-like here than in “300” – “Watchmen” rarely ceases to compel on a visceral, somewhat superficial level. Below the surface, however, I couldn’t help but find it pointless even with the nagging feeling of catastrophic doom Snyder so proficiently weaves throughout the film’s murder mystery/apocalyptic nightmare/dismantling of the superhuman mythos containing narrative.
Engaging, yes, but in terms of supplying the deep and complex dissection of the anxieties and falsified dystopia of the era it replicates – albeit in an alternate world – it seemed to have been more interested in scraping the surface just enough to get its point across and then moved on to the next notion or scene posthaste.
Adapting a rich, vastly emotive graphic novel or series into the confinements of a film can have that affect – trying to cram as much detail to please fans without eschewing a broader audience at the same time. Set in 1985, “Watchmen” takes place in an alternate New York City that is mere metaphorical minutes away from a nuclear Cold War, retelling the post-modern questioning of the notion of heroism as performed by a self-employed and latter forced-into-retirement team of dysfunctional avengers.
While Snyder’s source material is evidently more thematically loaded than he is used to, his replication thereof falters to these eyes because of his implementation of his modus operandi; music-video like visuals whereby almost motionless images are painted across the screen, with only campy, inefficient dialogue and corny musical cues reminding one that what are we witnessing isn’t, in fact, a comic book itself.
Watchmen’s aesthetic composition recalls the sleekness of “300,” while at the same time Synder’s focus on momentum and narrative depth is frustratingly inadequate. In other words, it seems as though he’s been able to almost faultlessly recreate the visualization of a/the graphic novel while diluting the ferocious, intellectually stimulating spirit I am told lies therein.
His slow-motion, freeze-frame, supersonically-speed-it-up-again methods that he implements for the majority of the fight scenes grows tiresome from the get-go and the brutality and gratuitous gore exercised by various Watchmen characters and the unmasked civilians that surround them lack any coherent significance, save for one or two instances where a mere intimation of nostalgia saves them from seeming violent for violence’s sake.
Snyder’s precision and will to do justice to his source material succeeds only because of the supposed quality of that material, as well as a few instances of casting efficiency (to refrain from calling it “genius). Jackie Earl Haley’s ‘Rorschach’ is as rich an encapsulation of such an untamed, feral figure as one is likely to bare witness to.
Nuanced and fused with a sense of unaffected cynicism of modernity and permutation, baring a fascinating, ever-wavering ink mask hinting at his disposition at any given moment, his performance is the redeeming factor of “Watchmen” that raises it above the futility it might have seemed to be to these eyes if Earl Haley hadn’t been cast.
Billy Crudup takes a character so easy to misunderstand and therefore not be able to take seriously (i.e. a naked, blue manlike/Godlike figure) and makes him affecting on a level that is not easy to pin down. Dr. Manhattan’s forced detachment from the human world – beyond a physical connection – is grave and he is seemingly unaffected by the impending doom that awaits the world he used to inhabit himself.
While he is Watchmen’s only true “superhero,” he is flawed as much as any of the other characters which makes him equally as engaging despite his instance on baring his glowing blue genitalia at all costs. Everyone else is either competent (Patrick Wilson) or pathetic (Malin Akerman), but no one detracts from the overall experience that “Watchmen” affords.
Oddly feeling too long and ineffectual in the indulgent running time it takes to recreate Alan Moore’s landmark graphic novel, “Watchmen” doesn’t revolutionize the comic-book genre, nor does it mar the genre’s transition into the realm of liberation after “The Dark Knight.” Instead, “Watchmen” feels void of inventive contemplation and comes off as a, damn me if I have to say it again, mostly pointless experience that latches onto many of the clichés and ideas it is supposedly meant to challenge.
Is “Watchmen” an example of a wasted opportunity? I’ll tell you when I’ve read the graphic novel. Until then, I’d say that if it is, it’s probably better that Snyder tried and and achieved little than to have tried and failed, or even worse, not to have tried at all.
Fatac Rating: ***
Watchmen. Directed by Zack Snyder. Written by David Hayter and Alex Tse, based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. Starring: Malin Akerman, Billy Crudup, Matthew Goode, Carla Gugino, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Patrick Wilson. Running Time: 161 minutes. Rating: 3 out of 5 stars. [C]
Daniel said,
March 9, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I’ve gone back and forth about this movie since seeing it on Friday, but more and more I’m leaning toward your thoughts here. I didn’t gain nearly as much from this movie as I should have, and I feel like if I read the novel and watched the movie again, the movie would just be more disappointing.
Vera said,
March 9, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Can we agree that the opening credits where not only the best thing about the movie, but also three minutes of brilliant film making and perhaps the greatest credits sequence of all time? Three days later and I still can’t get them out of my mind. The rest of the movie… eh.
Sam Juliano said,
March 9, 2009 at 10:12 pm
And I am heading in the opposite direction that Daniel is headed for! LOL! This is (as you admit) a visceral film, but it also has operatic sweep, thought-provoking philosophical verisimilitudes and some stark and stunning images. The ostensibly muddled plot takes a back seat to thematics, which in this case boders on the doomsday scenario. I was often awestruck by the film, an astonishing realization, when one considers how much I generally hate or am indifferent to this genre.
My kids couldn’t appreciate or process it, but maybe that’s because it’s really a “superhero movie for adults.”
As usual, the Fataculture treatment is truly magnificent, regardless of where I stand on the summary judgement. But I can’t really take issue with 3/4 in any case.
Matthew Lucas said,
March 9, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Sam, he gave it 3/5 not 3/4.
““Watchmen” feels void of inventive contemplation and comes off as a, damn me if I have to say it again, mostly pointless experience that latches onto many of the clichés and ideas it is supposedly meant to challenge.”
Exactly. I don’t think you hated it as much as I did…but we’re still basically on the same wavelength.
Sam Juliano said,
March 9, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Nick is now using a five-star rating system, I keep forgetting that. Well, I’ll admit that does change things.
moogirl22 said,
March 10, 2009 at 8:28 am
I pretty much agree with all the thoughts here. I felt it only really skimmed the surface of so many issues and themes that are apparently so important to the novel (I haven’t read it) and got straight to the action and sex. I think that Snyder was more focused in bringing to life the really visual scenes for purposes of pleasing fans of the novel and giving images to their thoughts, and therefore skipped over a lot of the plot- and theme-centric scenes. Because of this, I think he forgot that people who hadn’t read the novel could still see it. In the end, it felt too shallow and empty to really be called a “good” film, but it did entertain me and give me what I paid for (i.e. sex and violence). I’m interested in seeing if the director’s cut provides more depth.
glimmer said,
March 10, 2009 at 4:45 pm
will synder’s next project be *another* graphic novel/comic thing ???
and if so, why do i think it will come out in march. ha ha…
fadedsilverscreen said,
March 11, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I haven’t seen Watchmen yet, and, having not read the graphic novel, I’m not exactly in a rush to do so. Like yourself, I would see it mostly out of curiosity–and because I was impressed by the visuals in the trailer. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if I came out of the film with the same opinion as you.
It’s interesting, people keep saying that the opening credits are the best part. Maybe I should catch a showing and just stay for the opening credits, to see what the hype is all about? ;)
Darren said,
March 11, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Caught it last night. I’m a huge fan of the novel and while it never delivers on that level of excellence it gives it a pretty damn good effort. Structurally, its just not suited to the format of a film without dropping the back stories. So what you get is a film that at once feels too long but also incomplete.
I really missed the things they cut, which help to flesh out the non superhero characters and thus the “world” itself. Right now we have this huge tragedy but we don’t really know any of the normal people affected.
I also felt that the Dr Manhattan origin segment, which is an absolute work of art in the novel, is reduced to a highlights package that doesn’t have nearly as much of an emotional or intellectual pull.
That said, I still thought it got more right than it got wrong. I appreciate that its possibly the most (blue) ballsy big studio film in ages. When I think of how compromised V for Vendetta was, Synder almost seems to not give a shit about anyone unfamiliar with the material. If I hadn’t read it I would likely have a very different opinion.
It was an 8/10 for me. I’m hoping the directors cut will kick it up to 9.
pfangirl said,
March 12, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I share much the same opinion as Darren about the film, except that for me the Dr Manhattan sequence was the highlight of the film for me. My full review went up on my site today out of interest.
Daniel's Critical Corner said,
March 13, 2009 at 7:50 am
Nice review… I liked this movie. I’d give it more of a B-
It was just too long, and I really wanted a more in-depth
look at some of the characters.
Film-Book dot Com said,
March 14, 2009 at 12:23 am
You effectively hammered Snyder’s Watchmen Nick.
‘Everyone else is either competent (Patrick Wilson) or pathetic (Malin Akerman)”
This actually made me laugh outloud. Pathetic? Really?
“Watchmen” doesn’t revolutionize the comic-book genre, nor does it mar the genre’s transition into the realm of liberation after ‘The Dark Knight.’”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
“mostly pointless experience that latches onto many of the clichés and ideas it is supposedly meant to challenge.”
This is an unfortunate occurrence through part of the film. You’ll certainly be surprised when you read the 12-part series.
“Is “Watchmen” an example of a wasted opportunity?”
Snyder could never make everyone happy no matter what he did but the film certainly did not miss an opportunity at its outset
@Daniel. In a way you are right.
@Vera. Agreed.
@moogirl22. I’m looking forward to the director’s cut as well.
my full Watchmen Film Review:
http://film-book.com/film-review-watchmen/
coffee said,
March 15, 2009 at 1:30 am
I kept thinking that the guy who played the Comedian was Javier Bardem (I found out later that it’s actually Jeffrey Dean Morgan), but the two actors definitely look alike