Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2009 > March > 05 > Entry
Watchmen: 2009’s first big movie - and big letdown
I did not care for Watchmen.
Yes, this is how my review begins - not with a bang, but with a whimper. Still, that really was the thought running through my head as Watchmen’s endless credits scrolled. Even though I admired some of the movie, I kept going back to the most important question one must ask of any film: Did I care about the story and the characters?
I had to admit that for the most part, my answer was a dispirited “no.”
I had been looking forward to Watchmen - and not because I’m the fanboy type. I’ve never read the acclaimed Alan Moore graphic novel on which the movie is based, nor have I read anything else by the author. I was curious about Watchmen mainly because of its director, Zack Snyder, who had shown real promise with his Dawn of the Dead remake, and then seemed to fulfill much of that promise with the brash but visually resplendent 300.
This time, however, Snyder bit off more than he could chew. While the director has a flair for vivid imagery, he has not yet developed into a strong storyteller, and Moore’s dense, convoluted plot has proven to be too unwieldy for Snyder’s underdeveloped narrative skills. There’s plenty to see here, but precious little to remember.
In this very unusual story, the heroes are better described as anti-heroes. The key figures are Dr, Manhattan, (Billy Crudup), a man turned into a godlike figure via a science accident, Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), an ultraviolet sociopath who makes Alex of A Clockwork Orange look like a newborn kitten, the iconoclast the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), the sexpot Laurie Jupiter (Malin Akerman) and the geeky gadget man, Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson).
Once lauded for their work, the Watchmen, a band of costumed crusaders, now find themselves outcasts on the fringes of society in an alternate 1985, when Richard Nixon is still president, and American and Russia are at the brink of nuclear annihilation. The Watchmen could certainly save the world - but do they want to save a world that has rejected them?
I’m not sure I agree with the contention that Moore’s novel is “unfilmable.” I think a better director, like Terry Gilliam (Brazil), Darren Aronofsky (The Wrestler) or Paul Greengrass (The Bourne Ultimatum), all of whom flirted with the project, would have made a better film than what Snyder has overwrought.
Snyder and his writers, David Hayter and Alex Tse, were reportedly slavishly faithful in their adaptation, but even without reading the novel, I can tell that was a mistake. Gilliam, Aronofsky and Greengrass would have had the discipline to shape the story so that it would live and breathe on its own as a movie. Instead, by trying to cram so much material into 161 minutes, the movie feels too long and not long enough at the same time. Watchmen chokes itself with long, draggy stretches punctuated by gut-busting fights and leering sex scenes.
That’s not to say there isn’t good material here. Snyder remains gifted at staging action scenes, and crafting eye-filling visuals. The movie looks great. Best of all, Jackie Earle Haley, continuing the career renaissance that began with his Oscar-nominated performance in Little Children, sears the screen as Rorschach, even though most of the time we can’t see his face. Haley’s performance is so compelling, I wanted to see a movie just about his character.
For a while, Crudup’s tortured Dr. Manhattan is fascinating too, as the actor gets a lot of mileage out of pondering a character that can bend the universe to his will. He also deserves some kind of citation for bravery in letting all of him hang out, so to speak, since the good doctor frequently appears in the buff.
Still, Dr, Manhattan is a prime example of how the movie keeps shooting itself in the foot. Eventually, he is reduced to the kind of windy, give-me-a-break philosophizing that makes the Matrix movies feel like Socrates by comparison. The endings, in particular, are a gaseous mess.
I began to sense Watchmen wasn’t clicking when it kept reminding me of other, better movies. Pound-for-pound, the less ambitious but more proficient Taken is a better action movie. If you’re looking for a good move based on Moore’s work, V for Vendetta is a better choice. And even the idea of superheroes as outcasts has been done before, and done better, not only by Pixar’s The Incredibles, but by Hancock with Will Smith.
Perhaps Moore devotees will get more out of Watchmen than I did. All I saw was not only the first big-ticket movie of 2009, but also the first big disappointment.
GRADE: C
For another take, check out Zack McGhee’s review on our Movies & TV blog.
Permalink | Comments (16) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Comments
By Tatiana
March 10, 2009 1:14 PM | Link to this
I completely agree with everything in this review, except that fans of the book might be able to get more out of it. On the contrary- we were the most disappointed of all. :-(By Matt
March 9, 2009 2:22 AM | Link to this
I’ve seen lots of reviews about Watchmen that mentions that none of the characters were particularly likeable. IMO, that was Moore’s point. No one is perfect-even the heroes. The fact that you felt the most empathy for the ersatz hero of the movie (Rorschach) even though he is the most depraved of the ensemble shows that the content was not lost in translation. As to the downsides, I freely admit the movie dragged in sections. I also can’t say I honestly bought in to the sexpot either.By SRCputt
March 8, 2009 7:44 AM | Link to this
Pauly: I don’t like the Batman/Watchman comparison either, I was just trying to respond to Astonished’s point. A better comparison would be one of my all-time favorite scifi films, Blade Runner. It’s supposedly an adaption of a well-known and acclaimed Phillip K. Dick novel. Yet it pretty much ignores many of the themes and many of the ideas of the source material. Ridley Scott was more concerned with what made a great movie than what was in the novel. From the finished film, I have to conclude Zack Snyder did not focus enough on what made Watchmen a film, not just a recitation of the novel. You and I agree about Akerman, though. I think Watchmen would have been better if Carla Gugino and Akerman would have switched roles.By SRCputt
March 8, 2009 7:36 AM | Link to this
This whole argument about how faithful the movie is to the book, it may be important to some of you, but it isn’t to me. I don’t care what Alan Moore was trying to accomplish, because Alan Moore didn’t make this movie. The question to me is does it work as a movie. Unfortunately, the impression I got was that Zack Snyder was asking “Is it in the book?” when he should have been asking “Does it work as a film?”By PaulyOH
March 7, 2009 4:55 PM | Link to this
Sir Criti: But without reading the novel, you really don’t know how faithful it was to the book. You’re just going by what Snyder said. And yes, it was faithful, but not THAT faithful. Plenty of scenes were excised. Most of the last 20-30 minutes were significantly different. The thing is, I didn’t really miss much of what Snyder took out. He kept the guts. Also, without reading the novel, you don’t know what was originally written, and what was changed/added by Snyder. My only real complaint with the movie is Malin Akerman isn’t much of an actress, and some of the song choices were a bit out-of-place…especially during a certain scene on the Owlship.By Sir Critic
March 7, 2009 4:25 PM | Link to this
Josh, et al: I’m afraid you’ve rather missed my point. I am judging “Watchmen” on its own merits as a film. Although I have not read the novel, I have read enough news reports to know that Snyder and his writers tried to be very faithful. Snyder has repeatedly said so in interviews. I think that approach was a mistake because the movie could not live and breathe as its own work of art. A better director than Snyder would have found a way to make the story work as a movie. It may not have been what Moore had in mind, but it may have been a better movie. As SRCPutt stated, if a movie can only be appreciated if you’ve read the source, then the filmmakers dropped the ball. People who have not read “Watchmen” should not have to be at sea while everyone else “gets it.” That’s a good way to lose a large part of your audience, and that’s poor storytelling. As for my comparisons to “Hancock” and “The Incredibles,” yes, I know the “Watchmen” novel covered that territory first, but again, I was only considering movies. Because “Hancock” and “The Incredibles” got there before Snyder did (and were more effective stories) Snyder’s movie seems a little stale because the idea is no longer innovative, and the filmmakers didn’t adapt the material enough to compensate for that. But that’s just me. If you enjoyed it, more power to you. I wish I saw the movie you saw.By Josh
March 7, 2009 9:19 AM | Link to this
How can you say that this has been done before…. not only by Pixar�s The Incredibles, but by Hancock? Yes and it even was done before those two movies in a graphic novel that came out in 86 by the name of, oh what was it, oh yeah, The Watchmen.By PaulyOH
March 7, 2009 8:51 AM | Link to this
SRCputt: You can’t compare adapting Batman and Watchmen. Batman has appeared in comics for 60-70 years with all sorts of interpretations. There are a wide number of sources to draw from, so there’s not a single place to be faithful to. Watchmen has one source. One book. That’s it. Oh, and I don’t think you have to have read the book to enjoy the movie, but I don’t think this reviewer can fairly say that others could have done better adapting the book to film when he hasn’t even read the book. Snyder faced a huge challenge with Watchmen, and I think he pulled it off quite well. Is it a masterpiece? No. Is Watchmen for everyone? No. But neither was the book. I have a feeling this film will be one of the more polarizing of the year. Oh, and Astonished, where can I find Terry Gilliam’s script? That would be interesting to read.By SRCputt
March 6, 2009 6:45 PM | Link to this
If a film cannot be appreciated unless you read the source material, then it is a failure as an art form. Utisz, Astonished: you both read like guys who decided the film was a masterpiece before seeing it. Eric isn’t reviewing the book, he’s reviewing the film. I find it especially hilarious that Astonished mentions the Christian Bale Batman, which is not a faithful adaption of the comic.By Utisz
March 6, 2009 10:27 AM | Link to this
If you haven’t read the book, read it. That’s not just a comment to the reviewer but everyone. You won’t be disappointed. The graphic novel is simply unfilmable. This adaptation was a mistake from the beginning. The reviewer states it as “slavishly loyal” which is simply untrue, whole sections of Moore’s narrative are absent from the film, one assumes for time constraints. Of course it would be impossible to know that without having read the book. Having admitted to no knowledge of Moore’s work the recommendation of “V for Vendetta” is equally tainted. Watchman’s publication defined the modern superhero genre. Saying that Watchmen could learn from films like “Hankcock” and “The Incredibles” proves only the reviewer’s abysmal ignorance of the significance of Moore’s work.By Astonished
March 6, 2009 7:04 AM | Link to this
So you haven’t read the graphic novel, have no clue what Moore was attempting to convey in said book (an award winning book, I might add) — yet you’re SURE that it was overwroght and Snyder being “slavishly faithful” to Moore’s work was the wrong idea?!? In today’s cinema, people are tired of campy, simplified comic characters, they want true-to-written characters from comics (see Christian Bale’s Batman vs. George Clooney’s for a reference). Next time you tear apart a movie that is as sacred to a number of people as this one will be, try reading the book behind it, or at least talking to someone who loves the book, at length, to find out their viewpoints. Try reading Terry Gilliam’s version of the script, to see how you feel about it, after you read the book. Then tell us again how Zack Snyder screwed it up.By david
March 6, 2009 5:42 AM | Link to this
I read the book, and while I may see the movie, I wondered how they would make a good movie out of it. Looks like they didn’t.By SRCputt
March 5, 2009 7:25 PM | Link to this
This film also points out how silly Entertainment Weekly was to proclaim Snyder is one of the 20 best directors working today. At least 20 directors could have done a better job with Watchmen. The film seems out of the reach of Snyder’s abilities. It looked good, but it’s heart seems to be missing.By SRCputt
March 5, 2009 7:17 PM | Link to this
In addition to Eric’s points, which I agree with, two problems I had: One, the dialogue. It frequently lands with a thud. I understand a lot of it is straight from the comic, which simply reminds me material that works as written sometimes does not work when spoken. Second, the insistance on all these “real” people portrayed by bad impersonators. It’s distracting. When Dr. Manhattan does a TV interview, I wasn’t focused on Dr. Manhattan’s emotions. I was focused on trying to figure out if the interviewer was supposed to be David Frost or Dick Cavett. Haley’s really good in the film. Too bad the rest of the film isn’t up to his level.By Zack
March 5, 2009 2:19 PM | Link to this
Wow, Eric. You were right — I avoided your review until I’d finished my own, and so now I’m reading yours (well written as always) and pleasantly surprised to see how similar our views are. Certainly it’s a disappointment as far as the movie’s concerned, though. ;)By Allie D.
March 5, 2009 10:58 AM | Link to this
Oh man… This is a real bummer to read. I will be seeing this weekend, but you voiced some of the fears I had about the film after seeing the first of the new trailers…