Watchmen: Three Hours and Twelve Dollars Later…
The clock struck midnight and March 6, 2009 finally arrived. It was a day that had spent time in doubt with hostilities between the studios competing over the film’s rights brewing more hotly than the U.S. – Soviet relations that are the central plot device for the Watchmen story. But it all worked out because the two media giants found a new friendship when the dollar figure was right. Any fan of Watchmen would have done well to temper expectations, but judging by the already packed Imax screen showing at 11:15 last night, a full 46 minutes before the projector rolled, that wasn’t going to happen. So it’s time to assess the damage.
My first recommendation if you haven’t seen it yet is to make an attempt to take whatever you know or remember about the Watchmen out of your mind. Clear your head and watch this film as if the material was something new. However, that will be difficult because director Zack Snyder has filled this film so thoroughly with the iconic imagery of the original work that it is nearly impossible not to post mental snapshots of specific panels of the comic next to the screen while you watch. No, it’s not a shot for shot recreation of the graphic novel, but it’s definitely an intense attempt to stay not only true to the spirit of the source material, but almost true to a fault to the imagery.
Before I ramble about any specific thoughts on the film, let’s just get this out of the way first. Is the film any good? I can honestly the say that the film is damned impressive. It’s entertaining, engaging, gorgeous, and cruises through its nearly 3-hour run time effortlessly. But it’s not perfect. It’s not the best adaptation of a comic book property to the screen ever. However, it absolutely honors the material and what is accomplished is a testament to Zack Snyder’s ability to assemble a substantive, impressive, intensely artistic vision. Breathe a sigh of relief. Even though I enjoyed his previous major release, 300, in my eyes it hardly proved that he was capable of adapting such a complex story to the screen in a meaningful way. While 300 was an incredibly stylish screen adaptation of a comic, it was hardly a comparable task to the challenges and expectations that Watchmen brought.
Let’s take a look at this flick from the bottom up. For those that have heard rumor or spoiler to the effect the ending has been changed from the book, that is in fact, true. There is a rather major element to the story that has been altered from the original. Without getting into any major detail, I feel that the element that has been changed may seem like a big deal, but it’s damned near inconsequential to the story itself. It’s also not necessarily exactly what you might be expecting if you’ve been a spoiler hound.
At the risk of being hunted down by angry middle-aged comic book fans, I’m going to register my vote right now that the change in the story is an improvement. I believe it’s more relevant and substantive the way it’s presented in the film. Also, beyond that, it’s not really a major change in any real sense. If point A is the first pages of Chapter 1 and point B is the last couple of pages Chapter 12 of the Watchmen, point A and point B are identical in the film and the graphic novel.
So what went right with Watchmen? There are three major things that contributed to the success of this film: artistic choices, casting, and theme.
Artistic Choices. One of the most critical factors in setting the tone for Watchmen is that the first 15-20 minutes are shot for shot, frame for frame note perfect. The entire opening sequence through the credits firmly established where this film was coming from and what it is was about. It’s the most brilliant part of the film, and for anyone emotionally invested in the material it should be powerful enough to create a lump in your throat. I’m not the kind of critic that likes to give a play by play of a movie, but suffice to say that at least my vision of what Watchmen is about was captured as perfectly as you could imagine. From the murder of Edward Blake through the visual recounting of the history of costumed superheroes everything was right.
Also from an artistic perspective, the film did not pull any punches. It earns its R rating. There are disturbing and effective displays of violence. There are shots that will make you cringe and feel pain yet it’s all tastefully done and not one frame of it is what I would consider gratuitous or unnecessary. It is done at just the right balance to maintain the disturbing tone without being outrageous. There are tastefully done erotic scenes, nudity and in case you wondered, yes there is a floppy blue glowing penis that makes several appearances. Every artistic choice felt right.
Casting. I will be the first to say that there are some performances in this film that are stronger than others. However, there are three main players here that do incredible work. Though this film will very likely only see Oscar nominations for visual effects and possibly best screenplay adaptation I would feel very comfortable advocating at least two of these three performances for whatever accolades they get.
First, Jackie Earle Haley was extremely effective as Walter Kovacs/Rorschach. I was apprehensive about Haley based on meager glimpses in previews and clips prior to release, but suffice to say he nails it. He’s menacing, unstable, surly, and psychopathic as he should be.
Second, Jeffrey Dean Morgan simply dominates the first half of this film as Edward Blake/The Comedian. Blake is really the character on which the story pivots. While the film’s thematic story is built around society, human nature and the duality and moral base of human nature, the character of Edward Blake is the personification of those elements. If Blake doesn’t work, the film doesn’t work. Morgan gives what is easily the most enjoyable performance in Watchmen. Blake is a powerful character in this piece and every scene with Morgan is intensely satisfying. Quite frankly, as dirty as it might make me feel for saying it, Edward Blake rocks in all of his scummy, disgusting glory.
Rounding out the three best perfomances in the film is Billy Crudup as Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan. If there is any character in this saga that is probably viewed drastically differently by any specific fan of the source material, Dr. Manhattan could have been interpreted in any one of a dozen different ways. Ultimately, the character is one of the most interesting in modern literature. First, you have the artistic choice playing him either bigger than life, or underplaying it to the extreme. Crudup makes the right choice. Dr. Manhattan is presented as a soft spoken, almost superficial personality. The character is a god with the manner of a mouse. It is a challenge to play someone that is basically a complete alien in nature to any understanding of what we are as humans, yet demonstrate a layered, conflicted, richly realized and sympathetic character. He manages this and I adored his performance.
Beyond these three, the cast is strong top to bottom. Malin Akerman and Patrick Wilson both soundly realize Silk Spectre and Night Owl. If there is anyone that I never felt entirely comfortable with, it was Matthew Goode as Adrian Veidt. It was a particular interpretation of Veidt that seemed just a little too cliché or formula for my tastes. Not a deal breaker, even as key as Veidt is to the story, but not the strongest character in the cast.
Theme. Watchmen is basically about the shortcomings of human nature, making moral and ethical choices and taking a moral stance. That’s what it boils down to, and that’s what this film conveys. In a sense, I almost feel a little twinge of disappointment for younger fans of the Watchmen. The implications of the this “alternative” 1985 timeline in which it takes place are going to lose a little bit of bite for those that weren’t alive and aware during that decade. There are just a couple of key differences in this alternative timeline. What if we had won Vietnam? What if Nixon exceeded term limits and had been re-elected 5 times because of it? What if nuclear proliferation between the US and Soviets had accelerated only to be held in check by the delicate balance of the US having a dangerous Doctor Manhattan? It all works, it’s all well realized.
So why isn’t this film a masterpiece? This is a bit difficult. It’s definitely an imperfect film, though I hesitate to use the word “flawed.” There are some minor pacing problems through the second act. At points it flirts dangerously with getting out of hand meandering off the story, but it never really oversteps the line. When it does start to wander, it generally gets right back on track to where it should be. It’s all very true to the novel, but the challenge of compacting this work effectively into the run time is met respectably.
Also, not to retread Matthew Goode as Veidt, but he never quite came into focus for me. Were the character not so pivotal to the story, this would have been something easy to overlook, but it was for me just one of the very few pieces that didn’t have me leaving the theater feeling warm and fuzzy.
There is also an astoundingly bad make-up job on the aging Sally Jupiter, the original Silk Spectre. It really is the only visual element in the film that doesn’t work and it sticks out like a sore thumb. Not only does her old age make up look horrifically fake, but in flashbacks when she’s supposed to be 27 years old, she looks more like she’s 47. Very disappointing in a film that in every other respect took loving care of every visual element.
If there is one last thing that was kind of a mixed bag for me it was the soundtrack. I’m not speaking of the score, which was fine, but the song choices were very hit and miss. From classic Bob Dylan, to Jimi Hendrix, to Nena’s 80’s pop hit 99 Luftballoons, they superficially were all appropriate but instead acted to jar you out of the moment on too many occasions. I’m leaving the jury out on how effective or poor the use of the classic rock and pop soundtrack was used.
So my recommendation on Watchmen should be pretty clear. It’s a fantastic piece of art, it’s true in spirit and literal translation to the source material, and it is a fun and satisfying film. I don’t see many films more than once these days, especially trying to get at least one new release review a week up here, but even at nearly three hours long I’ll be gladly heading back to the cinema this weekend to take it all in a second time and it will be money well spent. I’m sure that there is going to be a large variance in reaction with the hardcore Watchmen crowd, but as a casual fan and collector of comics on and off over the years I found this to be a pretty damned solid piece of entertainment.
Stay tuned as I’m sure there will be at least one more perspective on the film here during the opening week.
Who watches the Watchmen? YOU should.
Technorati 
Del.icio.us 
StumbleUpon 
Digg 
Facebook 
Mixx 
Reddit
Tags: Movie Reviews, Watchmen
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
5 Responses to “Watchmen: Three Hours and Twelve Dollars Later…”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Honestly, I want my money back. I was bored out of my damn mind and thoroughly disappointed. I knew there was a lot of story to tell but I felt more like I was watching an R rated daytime soap opera than anything. I don’t think there’s anyway I’d recommend someone spending the money to sit through this in a theatre.
Parts of the movie really shined with two characters and they both end up dead. I was looking for explanations or missed them as to what the hell was so special about these people as well. So Veidt is a genius but why can he kick everyones ass on Earth? Why, exactly, do the rest of crew kick so much ass? Are they just “super human?” Why in the hell WAS the blue guy naked all the time? Did I miss an explanation or am I just supposed to imply to myself that clothes are “so human.”
I thought Nixon was absolutely terrible and was also a terrible make up job. It really made me think of a doctored up halloween mask. Parts of the movie were great but as overall entertainment I’d have to say it was just plain dull. I wasn’t expecting a total action film but I didn’t think I’d need a direct caffeine injection either.
March 7th, 2009 at 10:51 am
I’m getting the impression from your comments that you didn’t like it.
March 7th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Haha, what can I say, I just didn’t think it was that entertaining. It’s a crazy interesting story and I desperately wanted to love this movie but just couldn’t. I supposed it’s probably partially my own fault with an expectation of more of a hero movie than an emo soap opera.
March 7th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
I have a feeling that a lot people not familiar with the story may feel this way just heading in from the previews. It’s not any way a superhero action story. It’s very faithful to the source material though.
March 7th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Well, I will retract my inital “Want my money back” cause I didn’t really mean it anyway. I DO want to see this on DVD though and see if I get anymore into it, so to speak. It’s definitley a flick needing to be watched twice or more.