Movie Notes: Watchmen

March 11th, 2009

starstarstar = 3 stars

Starring Jackie Earle Haley, Malin Akerman, Jeffrey Dean Morgan
Directed by Zack Snyder

Synopsis

Set in an alternate 1985, a former costumed vigilante named the Comedian is brutally murdered. His former partners, namely the masked psychopath Rorschach, begin an investigation, as the threat of nuclear annihilation hangs over the world.

The Good

  • Attention to detail in terms of the set design, costumes, and time period are excellent, truly recreating the comic book art, largely to awesome effect.
  • Retains the time-skipping, intertwining plot threads, themes of human nature and justice, and repetition of visual motifs. There are solid origin stories to the Comedian, Dr. Manhattan, and Rorschach, many recurring moments with different significance, and some philosophizing in how Dr. Manhattan’s otherworldly super powers pull him far from humanity. Lastly, there are plenty of happy faces and watches to look for.
  • Doesn’t hold back in terms of darkness and violence. The Comedian’s cruelty in Vietnam and toward the original Silk Spectre are crucial to the flawed hero concept, and I remember the comic freaking me out by showing what Rorschach sees in the psychiatrist’s ink blots – both are in the movie.
  • Jackie Earle Haley in particular is perfectly psychotic and his reveal from beneath Rorschach’s mask, time in jail, and eventual exit are high points.
  • Snyder’s action scenes are visceral and thrilling, and few moments are excellent, like what Rorschach is up to behind a swinging bathroom door.

The Bad

  • Synder often wields an inappropriately large “epic” brush. Nearly every scene is introduced with a languid camera move, and slow motion is so overused it literally extends the running time by a psychological extra hour. I also wished many dialogue scenes (Dan and Laurie, Laurie and her mother) were framed more naturally. The end result is a lack of pacing and several important reveals late in the film have limited emotional resonance.
  • Popular songs (The Sound Of Silence, 99 Luft Ballons, All Along The Watchtower) are used to poor effect and the last in particular is unintentionally funny.
  • Speaking of unintentionally funny, several tolerable aspects of the comic come across as gratuitous or silly: sex in the owl ship (complete with fire ejaculation), Moloch’s pointy ears, Dr. Manhattan’s blue member (why does he sometimes have pants and sometimes not?), and Veidt’s pet tiger with the antennas.
  • Too long, despite much that should have been much more entertaining (trip to Mars, nuking a city). There’s a moment where Laurie says to Dr. Manhattan something like: “Why don’t you just tell us what’s going to happen and get it over with already?” My thoughts exactly.

Conclusion

First off, I read the graphic novel, enjoyed it immensely, and was really looking forward to this movie. But I learned a few things about expectations. Beforehand, I thought Snyder’s slavish devotion to the source material and the film’s long running time would both be assets. I was surprised to find both introducing an equal amount of negatives.

Despite a great screenplay, decent casting, and art direction, something failed in the last mile, specifically the editing and soundtrack. I’ve read the graphic novel twice, but don’t think I could handle another viewing of this movie. Even with my familiarity, I still found myself checking my watch several times.

And lastly, I don’t think knowledge of the source material should be required to enjoy a film adaptation. As a result, I lean toward Alan Moore being right. The Watchmen is an often interesting movie,  but I won’t blame anyone if they wait for the rental. And I suggest reading the graphic novel instead.

IMDB: Watchmen
Wikipeida: Watchmen
Rotten Tomatoes: Watchmen 64%

RSS Feed Please subscribe to the Webomatica RSS Feed!

  • DaveD
    I haven't read the "graphic novel"... not one bit. Nor have I seen the "movie".

    My question - a sincere one - is when did "comic book" turn into "graphic novel"? Even serialized... why this insistance on "graphic novel"?

    I've been wondering this ever since hearing about this movie. And since you decided to use this term four times in a single post I thought this would be a good place to ask it.

    Look, I understand some need to qualify that this serialized "comic book" hit on topics a bit more mature or dark than others. I can see where you would want to re-image the term into something because the target audience is most adult.

    But this insistance on call a serialized one time run mini-series of comic books a "graphic novel" just doesn't... compute with me.

    It's not just you - there have been several Gen-X or younger bloggers who seem to love to describe this story this way. And from all accounts it's a great story. But so were many serial comic books from the late 1950s and early 1960s. Except we didn't call them "graphic novels".

    Am I making sense?
  • Good question, and I am not really sure of the answer. I don't think
    "graphic" in graphic novel is meant in the same sense of "graphic
    violence." I think the term graphic novel is meant to differentiate
    from "comic book" in the sense that comic implies funny. The tern
    "novel" seems to imply a better quality of writing as well. I think
    they generally have a complete plot line as opposed to the episodic,
    where every issue is a new adventure and the order is unimportant.
    Kind of like a sitcom (Seinfeld) vs. a serialized show (Heroes).

    Personally, I have a looser definition, I'd consider any series of
    single-issue comic books combined into one compilation a "graphic
    novel." And yeah, the term definitely has some snobbery to it.
  • i don't like graphic novel.
  • Mike
    Agreed. Thoroughly enjoyed the comic / graphic novel, but the movie was missing some important stuff, and otherwise seemed a bit "off" (I think you were dead-on with the music, especially).

    My understanding is that the director's cut will be better:

    http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1605378...

    The movie was definitely missing Hollis Mason. Putting 'Tales of the Black Freighter' back in would be good, too.
  • Yeah - seems Hollis Mason added additional motivation for Dan to continue as
    Nite Owl. And the Black Freighter reminds me of the comic book guys, who
    provided levity to the story, and also made the destruction of the city more
    powerful, since there were some characters we cared about.
    And you're right, it sounds like both elements exist and were cut from the
    film.
    http://scifiwire.com/2009/02/what-had-to-be-cut...

    Still - IMHO something needs to be done with the music and all that slo-mo
    stuff. Maybe someone will take the full "director's cut" and then do a
    "phantom edit" :)
  • I have read the comic and was a little disappointed with the movie but I don't know that I have ever seen a movie after reading the book and not been a little bit disappointed. I don't think it's possible to live up to expectations when they were as high as they were for this movie.

    Overall I liked the movie and thought it to be entertaining. I would say I thought it was a little bit long for my taste although I don't necessarily mind long movies as long as the time is filled with stuff relevant to the plot. Long for the sake of long doesn't do it for me.

    I though the set designs looked good and the I think they got it right in terms of being "dark". Not bad overall.
blog comments powered by Disqus