Sorry about my absence lately. I’ve been deep in the heart of my laboratory, cooking up some exciting, life-altering stuff. And masturbating a lot.
Let me just preface this review by stating that I have never even gazed upon a WATCHMEN comic strip, and that, prior to seeing the first trailer for this film, I had no understanding of THE WATCHMEN universe. In other words, I’m representative of 99.99999999% of the population of Earth unfamiliar with Alan Moore’s alternative universe graphic novel.
For those billions of potential fans, the story (condensed) goes something like this: In an alternate 1985, a group of retired superheroes are being picked off by an unknown assailant just as President Richard Nixon is pushing the world to the brink of nuclear war. The most devoted of the group, a mysterious and violent vigilante named Rorschach, reunites with his former superhero team to discover the murderer, and attempt to avert Armageddon.
Of course, the graphic novel, spread over twelve issues and acclaimed for its density and depth, goes into much greater detail than my tiny little summary … but unfortunately the film does as well. And ultimately, that failure to trim material for the sake of brevity and intensity undoes director Zach Snyder’s brave attempt to adapt this material.
First the good stuff, which almost entirely falls at the feet of Rorschach, and the stunning performance by Jackie Earle Haleyto bring him to life. The character is brutal, seething with hate and revulsion at the world around him, and he gives life to this movie with his every scene. Haley, though confined by a mask throughout most of the running time, manages to convey Rorschach’s intense and perverse obsessions perfectly. But when Haley is freed from that mask, he is electric. I don’t think his performance is Oscar-worthy to the point that Heath Ledger’s performance was a year ago, but I think it will end up among my favorite performances of the year much the way Robert Downey Jr.’s performances ruled my best-of last year.
Also amazing is the embodiment of Dr. Manhattan, brought to life by Billy Crudupand a team of very talented CGI artists. This being, the only truly superhuman creature in the film, is an all-powerful naked man who glows blue and is capable of any feat in the universe. His conflict throughout the film provides it with some of its most thought-provoking ideas, grappling with notions of life and death, power and corruption on a cosmic scale that lends the entire film a sense of awe and wonder. Crudup gives Manhattan a cold, distant line reading that perfectly captures the indifference in the decisions he makes throughout. On top of that performance is nearly-photorealistic CGI, which reinforces Manhattan’s near-human origin.
And while I’m on the subject, Snyder deserves real credit for not bowing to pressure to conceal Dr. Manhattan’s genitalia. I can only imagine the studio heads balking at a $150 million dollar movie with a big blue dick waving around in the faces of the audience, but Snyder’s decision to leave it in there helps to visually demonstrate Manhattan’s lack of basic human qualities like modesty. Of course, if I had a cock that big, I’d probably be less inclined to strap on pants myself.
Now here comes the bad stuff … THE WATCHMEN plays much like the trailers suggest, which is cross between a tiny bit of realism of THE DARK KNIGHT and a lot of 300, mixed with a dash of SIN CITY. Like those films, there are pretty pictures galore, but a surprising lack of coherent storytelling and character development. The costumes are ornate, the special effects top-notch, and the performances over the top … yet the entire enterprise feels very cold and calculated. Aside from the Rorschach character and arc, there is almost nothing here that transports or elicits exhilaration in the same way that genre classics like STAR WARS have accomplished in the past with far fewer effects and stunts.
One huge strike against this film is the length. In an attempt to adapt the entire twelve-cycle comic, Snyder and writers David Hayter and Alex Tse have thrown in everything except the subscription. That means that a giant, rabbit-eared cat shows up near the end of the film without any reason or explanation; its demise moments later has some sort of emotional resonance with the villain, yet the audience cannot relate at all. I’m sure it meant something in the context of the comic book, but in the film it is ludicrous and off-putting.
So it is with most of this film. Rather than trim this monstrous superhero epic down into a manageable feature film, Snyder has instead made a film for the comic’s rabid but very small fanbase. While watching it, I kept wondering who was going to get any of this besides the geeks who have been spontaneously ejaculating over this material for the last twenty years. While I never felt lost, much of the film left me cold because I simply couldn’t care about these characters as presented here; a more focused screenplay, one that excised the extraneous stuff, would have served the characters and the story in this format. Two hours and forty minutes is just too long to stare at computer generated effects and soap opera histrionics.
And if anything is begging to be trimmed and edited, it is Moore’s original comic book storyline. Although it certainly contains some thought-provoking ideas, intriguing set pieces, and two great characters, much of the storyline is soap opera nonsense involving rape, love triangles, and illegitimate children; if I wanted to watch that, I’d watch the STAR WARS saga again. In addition, the hokey plot device of using an alternate 1985 smacks of artistic masturbation – what is the point of it besides attention-seeking?? As presented by the film, this plot device only serves to distract – rather than enhance – the entire fabric of the film. My audience laughed at every appearance of Richard Nixon and Lee Iacocca, as well as many of the other references to pop culture changes throughout. I couldn’t help but think that the movie would have played better had the alternate universe aspect been replaced by either a 1985 reality or a current-day reality. Regardless, it makes little sense to introduce an alternate reality situation in a film without some suggestion as to WHY it’s there, or what function it plays in the story. Here, it’s reduced to a mere gimmick.
Lately I have been hearing Snyder’s name bandied around as one of the most talented directors working today. Judging by this film and 300, he has a long way to go to be anything more than a director of Photoshopped images. Outside of the inherent script problems, Snyder fails to imbue the film with any sort of realistic human elements that would allow people to care about what happens onscreen. And before the whiners insist that it’s only a comic book movie, I would counter that STAR WARS was just about as ridiculous as major motion pictures get, yet George Lucas managed to ground the film with enough reality and character that audiences completely fell under its spell. Here, nothing really matters beyond the next quip, special effect, naked body, or blood splatter. Like 300, this film feels lightweight and pointless when it intends to be epic and dramatic.
Fans of the comic book will certainly love this movie, since the film pays slavish attention to almost pointless details throughout. Fans of Snyder’s 300 will also probably like this, since this film mirrors 300’s glossy, video-gamey look, nudity and gore. But for those hungry for a film experience that resonates in any sort of relatable human way, this film is a delicious looking – and very plastic – entree.



12 Comments
Hmmmmmm….I might just stay at home and Masturbate instead of seeing this!
Ah, Ray- how Ive missed your reviews! Bloody good stuff fella, as always!
Thanks, Simon :)
Talking about masturbation: Jana Cova is now doing hardcore! :D
You comment on it’s monstrous length (the movie, not Manhattan’s appendage), but I bet the version we’re seeing now is shorter than Snyder wanted. Wait for the 4 hour version wheh it hits DVD/Blu-ray…
Wow, I completely disagree with you, on one main point especially. The alternate 1985 setting is essential! It has to be set in that era because of the cold war, which is a central crux of the plot. And it’s an alternate 1985 because it imagines what the would would have been like if superheroes existed (the US won Vietnam etc). I thought the film established all of this brilliantly. By the way, I have not read the graphic novel and I’m not a big fan of 300 either.
Sorry, the first “would” should have been “world”.
Hey Ray!
It’s me again. Although I again disagree with many of your views, this time I can agree that we are from two completely different pasts, and so we will see the movie differently.
With most movies that are based off of a source material people may need to forget about the source material in order to enjoy the movie. I believe Watchmen may be the only exception to that rule.
There is a very large falling out with this film, and that does come from the people who have read the book VS the people that have not. It would have been very easy to cut things and change things and make it more cinematically friendly, but there has been so much of that in the past few decades, and I believe this film ws made more as a “special feature” than a real cinematical interpretation.
And obviously you would agree.
However, Star Wars had no source material, so I can hardly see how that would be a decent comparison to this movie. A better comparison would have served as The Harry Potter movies, which also had huge falling-outs from people who had read the books to people who enjoyed the movies. That series was changed to make it more cinematically friendly, and the whole series fell flat onto it’s face as a deformed half book half movie monstrocity to the world. Zack Snyder wanted to take the high road and take a journey with the people who had read the novel, and strictly serve them, and tell the people who hadn’t read it that they could come along for the ride, if they could keep up.
As for Snyder being the BEST director of the decade? FALSE. OH MY GOD, FALSE. He works well with and casts the main characters of his works incredibly well ( He often forgets the supporting roles and leaves them directionless…which is an incredibly rookie mistake and may just come with experience), and he has the good sense to hire Larry Fong to do the Art Direction and cinematography. Say what you want about the film, but we can all agree that both Watchmen and 300 were fucking beautiful. When people talk about how wonderful Zack Snyder is, they should be instead be appreciating Larry Fong, as most of the glory that we see comes from his imagination.
I also don’t see how you can judge this movie without mentioning the soundtrack, which fit the film so well that every time a new song came on, I was filled with glee, and take into note that these are event songs rather than mood setting songs, which was very impressive.
So in a bottom line, I can understand that you didn’t sppreciate the movie, but that really would be like saying that you didn’t like the Simpsons movie after not watching a single episode of the Simpsons. It is the history of the characters that makes the Simpsons funny, and it is the history of Watchmen that makes it glorious.
@ Rich – look, I understand that the alternate 1985 setting is the crux of the story’s focus on the Cold War … but the graphic novel was written at that time, and not 25 years hence. Had it been written three years ago, I doubt if anyone would have blinked at this story. My point is this: The story is no longer relevant, given the fact that the world has moved on from the Cold War (mostly). Watching the movie play out, the alternate 1985 thing feels like a gimmick rather than a serious story point.
@ James – Ahhhh … my arch enemy:) First of all, I agree with you that Snyder is not a great director, and that much of the credit for his success goes to those he’s chosen in key positions behind the camera.
I also agree that the Harry Potter series is a great example of adaptation from book to screen; that series has pissed off quite a few devoted readers by excising huge chunks from the novels, BUT … the movies play better that way, and ultimately win over most of the audience by playing the story according to the rules of cinema. I chose STAR WARS as an example of a ludicrous, bizarre story that works by grounding the proceedings in reality, something THE WATCHMEN fails to do.
I thought the soundtrack choices were painfully obvious, particularly “Everybody Wants To Rule The World” and “Times They Are A-Changin’”. Groan-worthy, actually.
While I can understand your Simpson’s analogy, I’m not sure I agree. There were certainly in-jokes throughout THE SIMPSON’S MOVIE, but I think the movie works as a stand-alone comedy as well … it just wouldn’t be quite as funny as it would be to hardcore fans. And I expect a WATCHMEN film that cost the studio $150 million dollars should be accessible to a wide audience as well, not just the geeks that jerked off to the comic back in the eighties. Sorry if that standard seems a bit high to you.
In my opinion, the storyline to THE WATCHMEN is embarrassingly soap-opera-ish, and unworthy of all this fan adoration. Perhaps the book presented it in a more palatable fashion; I admittedly don’t know. But as presented in the movie, I think the plot is amateurish and cliched. The characters are all repugnant, their stories (mostly) uninteresting, and the central mystery killer blatantly obvious to anyone who has watched a movie in the last 100 years.
Then the movie does the book a disservice by tacking on a ridiculous leap of illogical development (”We must blame Dr. Manhattan so that the world will never know the truth, and we must kill (you know who) in order to keep him from squealing”) that absolutely reeks of script desperation. It simply falls apart to the point that child could see its silliness, let alone the world’s only superbeing. It’s dumb.
Snyder has made a brave attempt to cram the entire fucking novel into this movie, so I can understand the masturbatory love for this movie from the hardcore WATCHMEN geeks out there. But I think a movie adapation requires something more than just an image-by-image recreation of the comic book panels. It needs to be trimmed down and focused, in order to give the material the thrust needed to work as a film experience, and Snyder did not do it here.
Sorry to all the geeks out there … but THE WATCHMEN is your PHANTOM MENACE. I walked out of my first couple of screenings thinking Lucas had pulled off a miracle with PHANTOM MENACE. It was only later, after the buzz wore off, that I could see the gaping flaws a stupidity in it. I think it will be the same with the logical WATCHMEN fans out there, those that can see this film for what it honestly is, rather than what they remember from the comic.
@Ray
I agree to some of your ideas, and disagree with others, but I think it comes down to personal tastes and expectations. I believe you were expecting a joyous jaunt of plot that most superhero movies have to offer, with a pizzaz of dazzle and a bit of insight as well, but Watchmen happens to be the rogue duck.
I admit that the film threw forward its best foot with brilliant visuals and wonderfully mind bending philosophy, and then lets it’s crippled love child character and plot stagger onto the field without his respirator. The acting from some was brilliant, while uninspired from others. By all means, it could have been better, but what it was was beautiful, and you at least have to admire it for that.
@Ray
Fair enough, I can understand you feeling that way. I guess it just comes down to personal taste; I find the alternate history angle really interesting and stimulating. I do agree about some of the song choices being iffy, and Nixon was poorly represented, but they were far from dealbreakers for me. As for the film being inaccessible to people who haven’t read the book, for me at least that certainly wasn’t the case (I will be reading it now). In fact going by all the reviews I’ve read I’m glad I held off from reading it, as the majority of the flaws that have been pointed out are in relation to the source material. From my completely subjective viewpoint, it both transported me and elicited exhilaration, to use your phrasing, which very few films have in recent years. I’d now like to see how it bears repeat viewing – that will be the true test.
wow you’re spot on Raymond.
I just wrote a quick review in the other post and it seems that I picked up on the same stuff you have
One Trackback
[...] cents already, including perfectly fine reviews by Obsessed With Film’s own Mike Edwards and Ray DeRousse. And all you guys have let us know what you thought of the film [...]