Watchmen
2009, United States
Director: Zack Snyder
Screenplay: David Hayter, Alex Tse
Story: Alan Moore
The first question I must ask in reviewing Watchmen is sort of an age-old question in the arts: how much credit do you give for something that relies on a previous version? Watchmen was supposedly based on some comic book (or something), so the creative heavy lifting had already been done by the time the movie version rolled around. That’s not to say important artistic decisions weren’t made for the movie, but it is, essentially, a “cover version” of the original. My approach is to frame the review around the quality of the interpretation.
If nothing else, Watchmen is very, very faithful to the comic book. There are some liberties taken with the action, a few lines transposed here and there, and a reworking of the ending, but much of the film directly follows the imagery and flow of the book. I give Watchmen credit for sticking to the source material (apparently not always as obvious a decision as it seems), and a little bit of extra credit for the generally good creative liberties taken.
In that regard, for starters, I think the movie is very kinetic and well-paced. A great many scenes are sped up or slowed way down, decisions that work and keep things creative and interesting. I also liked the aggressive lighting effects that used in some shots that, for lack of a better way to put it, made things feel more like a comic book. This is most noticeable (along with the interesting pacing) in the fantastic opening sequence, set to Bob Dylan’s The Times They Are A-Changin’. This is perhaps the nicest credit sequence I’ve seen, with a very interesting look, an excellent song choice (also referenced in the book), and a great introduction to Moore’s universe.
The movie opens with one of its brisk, exciting action sequences – sue me, but the Matrix-style combat still has not gotten old. The action also does a good job of establishing the superheroes as individuals to be feared, even if that benefit comes at the expense of realism (seriously, how many punches to the face can a guy take?) The casting is generally solid. Jackie Earle Haley makes for a fantastic Rorschach and Patrick Wilson looks remarkably like the Nite Owl. Dr. Manhattan was a little too distant for my tastes; his line about there being no structural difference between living and dead bodies always seemed too grossly insensitive to be consistent with the character, even in the book, and in the movie he actually uses the line on live TV (which seems just inconceivable to me – he’s not THAT out of touch). I also found it a little odd that Dr. Manhattan actually glows. I guess it works ok, but…that just didn’t occur to me.
It was pointed out in another review that Matthew Goode’s Ozymandias was one of the weaker casting calls, and on a second viewing I found myself agreeing. He’s not particularly subtle as the movie’s heavy and at the same time does not really channel the character as well as I’d have liked. Weaker decisions are also noticeable in the soundtrack, where the many instantly-recognizable songs tend to pull you out of the film (where they didn’t seem simply inappropriate to begin with). Some have critiqued the modified ending, but I actually think it works pretty well. It’s believable enough and avoids the complexities of a CGI squid (a word which actually appears on one of Veidt’s control panels).
Style: 9
I loved the action, I liked a lot of the camera work (just check out the dynamics of the shot where Veidt takes out his assassin – whabam!) Interesting lighting effects and rapid shifts in pacing keep the eye intrigued.
Substance: 7
It’s the greatest comic book ever written in part due to a fantastic cast of characters, most of which are represented very effectively here. Ozymandias IS the weakest link. Some of the line transpositions bothered me a bit, but that’s really a nitpick to a nitpick.
Overall: 8
Overall I thought this was a very strong interpretation of Moore’s original work. It could be improved by degrees with less of a sledgehammer soundtrack and a couple better decisions here or there. But overall I’d like to think Alan Moore could walk out of the theater with a little less British/artistic angst than usual and a few buckets of popcorn resting happily in his belly.
August 9, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Overall, Jay, good review. I too loved the movie, and am a die hard fan of the source material. In my opinion, this is probably the best possible Watchmen movie that could have been made, given the complexities and depth of the graphic novel. I thought they absolutely nailed quite a few of the characters, and visually translated quite a bit of the thematic elements of Gibbons’ artwork to the screen.
I can see how divisive the film can be to the average moviegoer at large, but also within the fan community. It’s got a sprawling, leisurely pace; the “mask killer” plot line kind of meanders here and there, and that it’s not nearly as black and white as even The Dark Knight, but much more challenging to the viewer. But isn’t that part of what makes Watchmen so great as a piece of fiction?
That being said, I would agree that it’s a flawed film, although a very good one. For one, and this has been pointed out in many reviews, while some of the acting is spot-on for the characters, Haley’s take on Rorschach being fantastic as noted, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan bringing a touch of melancholy, pathos and humor to the otherwise repugnant Comedian, Malin Akerman’s take on Silk Spectre left a bit to be desired to say the least. While probably the least-developed main character in the novel, I don’t think she quite pulled it off. And as for your comments on Goode as Veidt, I’d have to agree – he’s a little weak when compared to the character in the book, and I missed him not having his last minute moment of doubt; “I did I the right thing, didn’t I?” he asks. That would have capped his character off nicely. Other than that, I felt Billy Crudup hit just the right notes as Dr. Manhattan, even with the line about dead bodies versus live ones. I thought the origin sequence for him was a prefect translation of the backwards and forwards flow from the comic and looked amazing.
I also like how Snyder used film references throughout – just as Moore and Gibbons used comics references in the graphic novel. For example, Nixon’s War Room isn’t just any War Room, it’s the one from Dr. Strangelove, Vietnam is the ‘Nam of Apocalypse Now, “Ride of the Valkyries” and all, and Manhattan’s quarters are straight out of the end of 2001. And as far as the opening sequence is concerned, it’s flat-out amazing, and puts you right in that world, showing the history of Watchmen, and it’s divergent points from our own world. In my opinion it’s probably the best opening credits sequence since Se7en.
I think they had a tough job with the ending of the movie, and the compromised ending does work. I feel to pull off the ending as written would have been difficult to do, and would have needlessly extended an already lengthy film with additional subplots, and likely would have alienated the audience, with the immense scenes of carnage and the appearance of the Squid. As for the film, it ties everything up pretty well, while still maintaining the approximate tone of Moore’s cataclysmic ending.
I was curious – did you happen to see the Director’s Cut yet? I’m interested in your thoughts on that. While some of the stuff put back into the movie worked for me, I’d have to say the one thing that could have been kept deleted was Laurie’s interrogation by the military. It just seemed superfluous, and impeded the flow of an admittedly overlong film. But taken as a whole, what an embarrassment of riches.
August 11, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I’m going to have to go ahead and agree with the 8 out of 9 rating. I thought it was really well done. After having read the comic(or graphic novel) the night before I was amazed at how closely the movie followed the book.
It’s funny that you pointed out that Ozymandias was the weakest link in the cast, he seemed more like a teenage skateboarder from Gleaming the Cube than a super Villian. He just looked like a whiny little kid that you would see getting beat up in the hallway.
Kyle, it’s hard for me to agree that Silk Spectre left a bit to be desired, since the plot of her and the Night Owel was my favorite in the movie. The scenes where the night owel rediscovered the best part of himself while silk spectre was doing the same, and then them hooking up in was awesome.
I do think that the violence in the movie turned people off to it. For me it wasn’t a big deal, because I had read the comic the night before and the movies was almost like reading a comic to me. For other people that just went to check out the movie i think it was a little shocking.
August 11, 2009 at 3:30 pm
By the way, nineflick rules!
August 11, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Kyle, it sounds like we agreed quite a bit on this movie. I even agree with most of the additional points you bring up here, such as the general meandering of the mask killer subplot. I didn’t pick up on a couple of those movie references (is Dr. Manhattan’s quarters the actual same set as the one used in 2001?) However I will say that I thought the Silk Spectre II was actually pretty good; her mother, in part because of some questionable make-up at parts, did less for me.
I have not seen the Director’s Cut, though I know of at least one person who did and did not walk away with a favorable opinion. It might be just too much movie at that point.
Mike – if Nineflick rules (which, of course, it does) then it’s all thanks to the little people like you that make it happen. Awesome comments and I’m glad we agree that Ozymandias needs to be beat up. I just may have to do a Gleaming the Cube review next (Gleaming the Cube!!)
August 13, 2009 at 8:57 am
I think we do agree on this movie, Jay. As for my comments on Silk Spectre, in the comic her character is somewhat marginalized as “the girl” until she breaks up with Manhattan, then she becomes her own woman, and a more interesting character. Her scenes with Manhattan on Mars and with Dan throughout are quite good. What I meant to say is that acting-wise it didn’t quite work for me, hence leaving a bit to be desired. And Manhattan’s apartment was not THE one from 2001, I’m sure, but certainly patterned after the suite Dave Bowman finds himself in at the very end of the movie.
August 14, 2009 at 7:28 pm
This entire review is blasphemy.
At Brian’s advice, I decided to both read the graphic novel (which I did first) and then watch the movie (which I did later in the weekend, a few weeks ago – the Extended Director’s Cut in High Def Blu-Ray). My immediate — and enduring — reaction is that Watchmen was one of the most compelling graphic novels I have ever read, and at the same time, one of the worst films I have ever had the curse of viewing. Ever.
That said, I can understand your rating — the movie had a unique style, it was very (too) faithful to the source material — but I nevertheless feel that any serious movie-watcher who assesses the film on its own merits: the pacing, the vulgarly excessive and meaningless nudity, the arbitrary and laughable translation of major plot moments and storyarc shifts (which are untranslatable for screenplay), etc., would realize that this film – which has a dismally low meta-critic rating, went swiftly to DVD/Blu-Ray after a short box office run, and grossed just double what “300″ made (not a difficult feat) – should be consigned to oblivion.
I hated it.
August 17, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Well Juan, I haven’t seen the Extended Director’s Cut, so we’re almost talking about two different films. I suspect my opinion of that version would be at least somewhat closer to yours. In particular, you point out that some plot points were untranslatable for the big screen, and those decisions were probably handled better in the original theatrical release. Doesn’t the Extended Cut have Tales of the Black Freighter (the pirate comic book)? I cannot see that subplot, as an example, translating effectively to the big screen.
That said, I disagree with the validity of a couple of your points. I don’t think it is particularly relevant that the film has a low meta-critic rating or that it was financially unsuccessful. To the extent that popular opinion is relevant, I believe it must be considered over a much longer period, which is indeed consistent with your “last star” methodology of rating movies (i.e. a film can only get the highest rating if it is considered popular years after its release). There are many, many examples of films that are initially unsuccessful and later become popular, Shawshank Redemption being the best I can think of. Shawshank performed dismally at the box office but became a breakaway DVD hit, and of course is now considered one of the great modern films. But an intelligent film critic could have seen Shawshank’s appeal upon a first viewing. I certainly thought it was incredibly compelling the first time I saw it, as did many others. A reviewer that unduly relied on popular opinion in the period between its box office failure and DVD success would unfairly penalize the film rather than emphasize its own inherent value.
More broadly, I don’t put a lot of stock on popular critical opinion. IMDB has the Dark Knight as the 8th greatest movie ever made. I doubt right now I would judge it the 80th greatest movie ever made. To the extent I rely on other critical opinions, I try to look for evidence of deep experience with the medium (for example, the Sight and Sound poll of great films).