Any concerns that this WATCHMEN review will be drowned by only discussing the film’s adaptation from the graphic novel can be erased at once. I briefly considered reading the graphic novel but respect that it’s been in print nearly as long as I’ve been alive and attempting to justify an adaptation review based on a quick read-through isn’t fair to the source material. Instead I’ve decided to keep my relationship with WATCHMEN (and consequently this review) strictly with what director ZACK SNYDER (300) decided to put on the screen.
WATCHMEN tells the story of an alternate 1985 that finds NIXON still in The White House and the UNITED STATES in an escalating nuclear arms race with the USSR (a tense relationship measured by the DOOMSDAY clock which counts down to the nuclear holocaust and currently set to five minutes to midnight). In this world we also have DR MANHATTAN – a former nuclear physicist who becomes god (for lack of a better word) after a bizarre accident endows him unlimited power and the ability to perceive a world without time. The group of costumed vigilante crime fighters (the WATCHMEN) have all but retired, save one uncompromising hero, RORSCHACH. In an effort to keep this review more streamlined than the film itself, we’ll start with RORSCHACH.
RORSCHACH is perhaps best described by himself, as he’s being wrestled to the ground by prison guards following a brawl in which RORSCHACH killed an inmate. “It’s not me locked in here with you,” he shouts at the other riotous prison inmates. “It’s YOU locked in here with ME!” RORSCHACH’s narrow tolerance for scum recollects an old noir detective’s passion for investigation and its no surprise that RORSCHACH is chosen to lead us through the WATCHMEN universe on a manhunt for the killer who’s been “picking off costumed heroes” – or in other words – all his old pals.
WATCHMEN unfolds through a series of journal entries provided through frequent VOICE OVER by RORSCHACH and as he inches closer to finding the elusive killer we’re introduced to the other WATCHMEN. Perhaps the most compelling of these WATCHMEN is THE COMEDIAN, the first of the “costumed heroes” to be picked off. As a result the audience is only revealed the character’s genius in a series of flashbacks – all of which carry a frightening horror about THE COMEDIAN’s seemingly anarchist embrace of life. He isn’t shy about being a killer, but not entirely devoid of complexity (although the only tear-filled moment he is on screen falls dramatically short).
Not as complex is the NITE OWL II, a retired WATCHMEN who puts his mask back on to aide RORSCHACH’s quest for the killer. NITE OWL II is involved in a love affair with DR MANHATTAN’s current girlfriend (also a WATCHMEN), SILK SPECTRE II. Many of these WATCHMEN are the second iterations of heroes, the first being either their father’s or mother’s who formed the original WATCHMEN sometime in the 1940s. We’re treated to a highly stylized history of this group’s formation, rise and decline in a charged opening sequence set nicely against quintessential American rock and pop tracks.
In fact the upfront of the film isn’t the only place WATCHMEN invests highly (and specifically) in the soundtrack. Throughout the film, WATCHMEN is unafraid of it’s homage to the American dream; a dream THE COMEDIAN believes has come true – thus creating a world on the brink of social collapse. Whether its BOB DYLAN or PAUL SIMON or HENDRIX – WATCHMEN’s unabashed love of American culture can be seen in how brilliantly the alternate 1985 comes to life. Despite cyan colored demi-gods, billionaire playboy superheroes (OZYMANDIAS… also a WATCHMEN) and the threat of NIXON preemptively destroying half the planet, we always feel as though we’re in America.
And maybe it’s how skillfully SNYDER has painted this alternate American picture – and that the canvas he uses is absolutely stunning – that when WATCHMEN becomes haphazard it’s such a disappointment. It’s shocking to think that this isn’t a case of STYLE over SUBSTANCE – but rather too much substance. Despite how compelling and well executed WATCHMEN's universe is, the audience is being rushed around from place to place and character to character with such frequency and alarm, that the end result is a frenzied mess.
WATCHMEN left me wondering if SNYDER told the best story he could have. Perhaps a more focused story following RORSCHACH or THE COMEDIAN (or just an observer?) could have kept WATCHMEN more digestible, but would it have been as much fun? Seeing a man thrown through plated glass at 80 stories in excruciatingly slow detail does have its pros as it would turnout. But the undertaking of bringing a universe of this scope to life is not without it’s risks, and one needs only to point to the heavily used VOICE OVER crutch to show that WATCHMEN is another example of biting off more than you can chew.
(on a scale of FOUR)
For those who have chewed – or for anyone who has a thought, please share below! WATCHMEN is going to be talked about for some time now – so let the discussions begin:
FYI – for those not sure if they’d like to see WATCHMEN the R-RATING is for several instances of extremely graphic violence, nudity, language and sex.
I'm with your review. Visually, Snyder nailed the look of the film, but I did think that a lot of the events and characterizations came off as a little hollow. Jackie Earl Haley and Billy Crudup were excellent as Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan though, and I'll never look at the novel again without thinking of them. The final 30 minutes felt rushed, and the character of Ozymandias was sorely missing from most of the film, but I guess that's what you have to do to please today's mainstream audiences. They want nonstop explosions, boobs, and easy to understand exposition.
ReplyDeleteSnyder himself said that over an hour of footage will be released as a part of the Director's Cut when Watchmen debuts on DVD. Part of this footage will be a 22 minute long Tales of the Black Freighter animation, which should be awesome and please the novel's many fans.
It's interesting hearing your review from someone who hasn't read the comic. For me, its impossible to separate the two. It's not like Lord of the Rings where after half an hour I forgot about the books and just enjoyed the movie for what it is. Watchmen, for me, wasn't a movie, but just the comic in an abbreviated movie form. Practically every shot is direct from a comic panel. Not that this was bad, since the movie ended up looking incredible, but it made separating the film from the comic impossible. This was like watching cliff notes of the Watchmen comic; it hits all the high notes and you get the gist, but you lose all the context and little details that make it great. The source material shines through almost despite the movie. And perhaps this is just a lot of words to say "the book was better," but it feel like Snyder didn't make a movie about watchmen, but made a movie about a comic book about watchmen, if that makes sense. He deftly transfers the comic to the screen, but he doesn't make a movie.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I enjoyed it, and might see it again while it's still in theatres. I especially like the opening sequence showing the Watchmen's history. In this and 300, Snyder has shown he can make some great movie moments, and some terrible ones, but when it works, he nails it. He doesn't work well with "subtlety" at all, but if turned down the dial a little, I think he could make a really great movie. I'd really like to see what he could do with an original story.
p.s. Rodriguez directed Sin City
How could I have screwed up the SIN CITY credit? I remember seeing that picture opening night - and then refusing to watch it ever again and holding Rodriguez singularly responsible (I went on to loathe his recent attempt in PLANET TERROR/GRINDHOUSE: PART I). My apologies and thank you for pointing it out because the further anyone is from SIN CITY - the better.
ReplyDeleteBoth Bizkit and Seth echo a similar sentiment in that SYNDER has put together a visually stunning piece, but the arrangement falls short of a cohesive picture.
While I agree with Bizkit that WATCHMEN pandered to mass appeal of sex and violence - I didn't think ANY of it's exposition was necessarily easy to understand.
Also, Seth draws an interesting comparison to LOTR - arguably one of the most successful adaptations of a widely interfaced piece of literature - in that LOTR always remained true to the ESSENCE of TOLKIEN and never intended to REPLICATE it.