Watchmen

[Alexander]

The moment comic book fans have waited nearly twenty three years for came last night at one minute past midnight. That was when Zack Snyder's film version of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' allegedy unfilmable graphic novel - arguably the greatest piece of comic art ever produced - finally hit screens in the United States. I could get a ticket last night, but not for the Imax show which has apparently been sold out for some time. Wanting to see it in Imax, I opted to buy a ticket to the first showing today (unemployment does have its benefits).

Now let's make one thing perfectly clear (as Richard Nixon, himself a Watchmen character, would say): Being a fan of "Watchmen" going all the way back to the book's initial run as a twelve issue limited series in 1986, I went into this film expecting to be disappointed. I have read and reread "Watchmen" over and over again as the years have passed. I know every nuance, ever tiny detail. I knew that no movie, however good, could capture every possible facet of the book's intricacy. Things would have to be left out. Every filmed adaptation of a book, from Danielle Steele to "Ulysses", is a compromise. Many films have managed to capture a book's ineffable spirit while losing large chunks of narrative. That's just part of the game. Alan Moore graphic novels have, for the most part, made poor fodder for films. "From Hell" was abysmal. "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" was appalling. "V for Vendetta" was decent, but deeply flawed. Something about Moore doesn't seem to translate to the screen. I suspect it has something to do with the general complexity of his work. When a film is made of one of his books, the films tend to glom onto the style of Moore's narrative, while entirely missing the substance. "Watchmen" came near to the mark, but as with the other films made of Moore's books, it missed it. By a wide margin.

<<Spoiler Alert>>

So what went wrong with "Watchmen"? Over the years, numerous screenwriters and directors have attempted to bring this story to the screen. One by one, they've given up and walked away (most notably Terry Gilliam, who declared that no one film to do justice to the story. It would have to be a mini-series). Finally, Zack Snyder, whose directorial credits include a remake of "Dawn of the Dead" and the uneven adaptation of Frank Miller's "300", took the challenge on. What made Snyder think he could succeed where directors like Gilliam and Darren Arnofsky had failed? I don't know. Perhaps he was high on his own sense of optimism. Perhaps such optimism is required when attempting something as ambitious as this.

Snyder's heart was surely in the right place. He attempts to squeeze everything he can from the book into 2 hours and 40 minutes. The dialogue is largely taken directly from Moore's text. Many iconic panels are faithfully recreated. This should be a fanboy's wet dream. But it isn't. It doesn't work. What I'm left wondering is, why not?

First of all, with only 160 minutes to tell a story as rich in detail and subtle in subtext as "Watchmen," Snyder elects to hit the highlights. This gives the film a breathless, rushed feel (ironic for a film that's already derided for being too long). In Improv we often play a game where we have to perform a well-known epic (like "The Odyssey" or "Gone with the Wind") in one minute. The result is frantic and funny, with iconic scenes and lines thrown out one after the other. That's EXACTLY how "Watchmen" feels...except, of course, it's not funny. It's as though Snyder is saying to the viewer, "Remember this part? And this part? Oh, and this part? And then there's this part here..." A fan can pick up on what's happening easily enough, but I have a feeling that a non-fan is going to sit there and go, "huh?" Too much has to be glossed over too quickly in order to get it all in.

The film, based as it was on a monthly comic book, is also too episodic. Rather than spreading Dr. Manhattan's recollections of his life throughout the film, we get a "chapter" from the book (rushed through and dumbed down, of course, so it doesn't take up TOO much time). As I watched the film, I could tell you exactly which "issue" we were in. Snyder makes the mistake of trying to film "Watchmen" rather than trying to make "Watchmen" into a film.

Another MAJOR mistake on Snyder's part is making the action bloodier and more violent than in the book (already pretty violent, btw. A dog gets it's head split open with a meat cleaver. "The Pokey Little Puppy" this ain't), which is simply uncalled for. A character gets his throat slit in the book? Have his hands chopped off in the film! It's not enough that Adrian's secretary is killed in a failed assassination attempt? Make sure that Lee Iacocca gets a bullet in the head as well!

The ending is changed as well, although not as much as you might think. Adrian's plot is no longer to unite the world with a fake alien invasion. Now we're going to make Dr. Manhattan the new boogie man. But that's not the real problem. The problem is that all of Adrian's exposition explaining WHY he does what he does has been removed from the film. Adrian, for all of his monstrosity in the book, is still a fairly sympathetic character because we understand that he really does MEAN well. The whole point of the book is how the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Nothing of that survives in the film, partly because Snyder neutered it, but also because the actor who plays Ozymandias is horrible, underplaying that character to an absurd degree.

Snyder does get the look of the book right. His Dr. Manhattan is taken right off the page. Yet he has no grandure whatsoever. he looks flat out ridiculous most of the time, in fact. This is supposed to be the most powerful creature in the universe! Why is Billy Crudup playing him as Data in Star Trek: The Next Generation? In the book, the character is shocked with it is suggested that he gave cancer to his closest friends and associates. In the film, he barely manages to blink.

The performances of Nite Owl and Rorshach are quite good, as is the Comedian (who disappears from the narrative of the film for too long, however), but the actress who plays Laurie/ The Silk Spectre II is abysmal. She certainly looks good, but the girl can't act her way out of a paper bag. She and Dan are supposed to give the story its humanity. Dan does fine, but he's carrying the load for Laurie.

For a film to look this good and stink this bad is a real shame. This is worse than a bad adaptation: This is a missed opportunity.

[RDK]

I'll let you know in a few hours. Reviews have been quite mixed. I know fans of the book who loved it; others who hated it; some who haven't read it simply didn't understand much of it.

[BruceH]

I think I'll give it a miss.

[Van Basten II]

So tired of those super hero franchises turning into the next big Hollywood thing, why don't they create something original where the public doesn't go with already pre-conceived expectations.

[jazzbo]

Yes, these preconceived notions are what seem to ruin them for many. I don't really expect any of them to be perfect adaptations of how the source material is TO ME, so I just take them for what they are, entertainment, the new rebooted version the parent company wants to cash in on, etc. I do enjoy them, I just don't take them too seriously. Some I really have liked a lot, like "The Spirit." I'll probably enjoy "Watchmen" a lot too, for the spectacle and entertainment. I don't expect it to be "all Allen Moore and a bag of chips."

Oddly, the one that I thought was a very faithful adaptation was "The Spirit," and NO ONE seemed to like that one. . . !

Edited March 6, 2009 by jazzbo

[Chuck Nessa]

and life goes on.............

[RDK]

So tired of those super hero franchises turning into the next big Hollywood thing, why don't they create something original where the public doesn't go with already pre-conceived expectations.

I'm not sure what you're "pre-conceived expectations" might be re: Watchmen, but unless you've read the book I can almost guarantee they'd be wrong.

[RDK]

and life goes on.............

Which could be said about just about any thread here...

[AndrewHill]

Just saw this last night at a midnight showing (only because my wife and I know an employee who works at Atlas and could get us in for free ).

I really didn't know the plot well or what I was in store for until I got there, and to be honest, I've never been a big fan of comic book heroes or comic books for that matter, and I found myself really struggling to get through this 2 and 1/2 movie. I guess I'm more of a non-fiction guy because I just couldn't get into the characters and the plot. The whole thing, in sum, was just really hokey for me, IMHO.

[Larry Kart]

Saw it today. Sadly, I agree with everything Alexander said. All I would add is that in terms of pace there is a peculiarly anti-cinematic, plodding step-by-step feel to it-- the pace, as Alexander suggests, of someone moving from panel to panel in a too literal minded, up-tight manner. Also, as Alexander says, Ozymandias needs to be glowing and charismatic. This actor has all the appeal of a used mop.

[Alexander]

Just saw this last night at a midnight showing (only because my wife and I know an employee who works at Atlas and could get us in for free ).

I really didn't know the plot well or what I was in store for until I got there, and to be honest, I've never been a big fan of comic book heroes or comic books for that matter, and I found myself really struggling to get through this 2 and 1/2 movie. I guess I'm more of a non-fiction guy because I just couldn't get into the characters and the plot. The whole thing, in sum, was just really hokey for me, IMHO.

I urge you to consider reading the book. Even if you're not a fan of comic book heroes, I think you'd find it interesting.

The thing to understand is that when Moore wrote "Watchmen" in 1985, nothing like it had ever happened in comics. Moore was basically saying that a world with super beings could not help but be effected by their existence. That's why Nixon is still POTUS in 1985. That's why (in the book) everyone drives electric cars. Even the fashions are different (something not covered in the film at all) and it's all because of the existence of one man: Jon Osterman, aka Dr. Manhattan. The world has contorted itself to suit the existence of one being. Each chapter of the book is followed by a text piece that fleshes that world out. The first three chapters tell us the backstory of Hollis Mason (the first Nite Owl) and by extention give a history of this world's costumed heroes during the late '30s through the early '60s. Other text pieces give us a glimpse into the personal history of Rorschach (via his arrest record and psychatric records from his troubled childhood). There's so much detail in the book, the film couldn't help but merely scratch the surface. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that even if Snyder succeeded in making an entertaining film, he's really done the book a disservice because a lot of people are going to see this and say, "That's IT? That's the story that people call the "Citizen Kane" of comic books? I guess if THAT'S the best they can do, there really isn't anything to it!"

A little context as well:

During the late 1980s, a lot of comic book publishers were trying to reshape their familiar heroes. Frank Miller had been allowed to write his groundbreaking "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" which presents a middle aged Bruce Wayne getting back into the hero biz after a ten year retirement and finding that the world has grown worse during his absence. John Byrne (very much the "in" comic creator of that period) was going to completely reboot DC's flagship character, Superman. George Perez did the same to Wonder Woman. Other properties that had been published by other companies but had been acquired by DC (such as Fawcett's original Captain "Shazam" Marvel) were given a new lease on life.

Alan Moore had been asked to write a story featuring a bunch of fairly obscure heroes DC had acquired from a company called Charlton. These included Steve Ditko's The Question, Captain Atom, the Blue Beetle, and a few others. Moore took these characters and put them in a dystopian parallel present, forcing them to deal with "real world" problems. What if the people you count on to protect you are themselves morally questionable? What if someone with power decides to sacrifice unwitting lives in the name of a greater good? Who has the right to make decisions like that? It was a heavy duty story and DC knew it. The only problem was that by the time the story is over, half the characters are dead, and DC had plans to make regular use of the Charlton characters. So Moore was forced to create his own characters who would closely parallel their models.

The Question

became Rorschach.

The Blue Beetle

became Nite Owl.

Captain Atom

became Dr. Manhattan.

And so on. So "Watchmen" had no familiar characters. It also challenged the very idea of "heroism." Can a man who rapes and murders be a hero? What sort of obligation do we have to our fellow man? Rorschach, Ozymandias, Dr. Manhattan, and the Comedian present very troubling examples of heroism. The Comedian works for the U.S. government, therefore he is a hero by virtue of the power invested in him by his nation. Rorschach is a vigilante with a very black/white views on morality ("...There is good and there is evil and evil must be punished. Even in the face of armageddon, I shall not compromise in this."); he is also a crazy street person who kills those he considers "evil." Dr. Manhattan really doesn't care at all. His view of time allows him to see the past, present and future simultaneously. He calls himself a "puppet who can see the strings." And then there is Ozymandias, the most frightening of them all. Unlike the Comedian who is an amoral mercenary who hires himself out to whomever gives him the most freedom, or Rorschach who acts out of a twisted idea of justice, Ozymandias seems to embody the American ideal: Blond, blue eyed, handsome, brilliant, wealthy, politically liberal...Ozymandias is the character who retains our sympathy and admiration throughout the narrative. He's not crazy like Rorschach or cruel like the Comedian. He's not drifting out of touch like Dr. Manhattan, nor is he a "flabby failure" like Nite Owl. He is a philanthropist and a self-made man. His only power is his iron will, which he repeatedly points out is something within the reach of any man or woman. But as you read, come to realize that what Ozymandias REALLY represents is not the American ideal so much as the Nazi ideal. And he is truely insidious because he honestly believes that he is acting in the best interests of humanity. Alarmed by what he views as an inevitable nuclear conflict, Ozymandias puts his fortune and his genius towards a plan that will save mankind by tricking it into cooperation. His plot reaches over decades and touches literally hundreds of lives. He murders millions so that billions will live...and he doesn't see himself as the bad guy. In the end (with the exception of Rorschach) the others agree. They don't see him as the bad guy either.

The film turns the subtlety of the book into a couple of trite lines, and my summary doesn't do a better job. You have to read the book to see how Moore makes all of this work and work brilliantly. It was the first Alan Moore book I ever read and it turned me into a fan for life. Please, don't dismiss the book on the basis of the movie. In fact, if you have to choose between reading the book and seeing the film, read the book. It's a better use of your time.

[Alexander]

Saw it today. Sadly, I agree with everything Alexander said. All I would add is that in terms of pace there is a peculiarly anti-cinematic, plodding step-by-step feel to it-- the pace, as Alexander suggests, of someone moving from panel to panel in a too literal minded, up-tight manner. Also, as Alexander says, Ozymandias needs to be glowing and charismatic. This actor has all the appeal of a used mop.

The only actor who could have done justice to Ozymandias, in my opinion, was Heath Ledger. I think he would have really been brilliant in that role.

[AndrewHill]

Thanks, Alexander, I'll check out that book.

[Jazzmoose]

So tired of those super hero franchises turning into the next big Hollywood thing, why don't they create something original where the public doesn't go with already pre-conceived expectations.

I'd hardly call Watchmen a "super hero franchise". I can't see any self-respecting fan of the book ever seeing a sequel, even if one was made. And while those hardcore comic fans "wag the dog" far too often in these movies, I can't see one making it at all without that audience.

[RDK]

Saw it today. Sadly, I agree with everything Alexander said. All I would add is that in terms of pace there is a peculiarly anti-cinematic, plodding step-by-step feel to it-- the pace, as Alexander suggests, of someone moving from panel to panel in a too literal minded, up-tight manner. Also, as Alexander says, Ozymandias needs to be glowing and charismatic. This actor has all the appeal of a used mop.

I agree as well. I was very disappointed.

I actually worked on this a bit when the project was set up at Universal (before it went to Paramount and ultimately to Warners, in between which it almost came back to Uni) and the last draft that I read was quite good - better, imo, than what ended up on screen. Zack was indeed much too slavish to the book, which is a fine objective - to a point - but not when it gets in the way of telling the story as a film. I also think it would have been better - and ultimately more profitable - with a PG-13 rather than an R-rating. Rather than add to the edginess of the material, I found much of the violence to be gratuitous.

[ejp626]

Saw it today. Sadly, I agree with everything Alexander said. All I would add is that in terms of pace there is a peculiarly anti-cinematic, plodding step-by-step feel to it-- the pace, as Alexander suggests, of someone moving from panel to panel in a too literal minded, up-tight manner. Also, as Alexander says, Ozymandias needs to be glowing and charismatic. This actor has all the appeal of a used mop.

I agree as well. I was very disappointed.

I actually worked on this a bit when the project was set up at Universal (before it went to Paramount and ultimately to Warners, in between which it almost came back to Uni) and the last draft that I read was quite good - better, imo, than what ended up on screen. Zack was indeed much too slavish to the book, which is a fine objective - to a point - but not when it gets in the way of telling the story as a film. I also think it would have been better - and ultimately more profitable - with a PG-13 rather than an R-rating. Rather than add to the edginess of the material, I found much of the violence to be gratuitous.

I really don't enjoy violence (or specifically killing) on-screen unless it is purposely unrealistic (maybe some of the Hellboy scenes). So while I would no doubt be disappointed by the film, I would probably go watch it anyway, except these reports of how so much of the violence has been moved off-panel to on-screen. Frankly, it is as if the director treats the audience as if they are idiots, compared to the relative restraint of the book. It's not enough that the whole gesalt screams this is a nihilistic, dog-eat-dog world, we've got to see the blood and have our noses rubbed in it. What a waste.

A few people have suggested that Jude Law could have pulled off Ozymandias (and certainly would have been more age-appropriate). I know he isn't as charasmatic as Ledger, but he could have done the aloof genius thing pretty well.

[Alexander]

Saw it today. Sadly, I agree with everything Alexander said. All I would add is that in terms of pace there is a peculiarly anti-cinematic, plodding step-by-step feel to it-- the pace, as Alexander suggests, of someone moving from panel to panel in a too literal minded, up-tight manner. Also, as Alexander says, Ozymandias needs to be glowing and charismatic. This actor has all the appeal of a used mop.

I agree as well. I was very disappointed.

I actually worked on this a bit when the project was set up at Universal (before it went to Paramount and ultimately to Warners, in between which it almost came back to Uni) and the last draft that I read was quite good - better, imo, than what ended up on screen. Zack was indeed much too slavish to the book, which is a fine objective - to a point - but not when it gets in the way of telling the story as a film. I also think it would have been better - and ultimately more profitable - with a PG-13 rather than an R-rating. Rather than add to the edginess of the material, I found much of the violence to be gratuitous.

I really don't enjoy violence (or specifically killing) on-screen unless it is purposely unrealistic (maybe some of the Hellboy scenes). So while I would no doubt be disappointed by the film, I would probably go watch it anyway, except these reports of how so much of the violence has been moved off-panel to on-screen. Frankly, it is as if the director treats the audience as if they are idiots, compared to the relative restraint of the book. It's not enough that the whole gesalt screams this is a nihilistic, dog-eat-dog world, we've got to see the blood and have our noses rubbed in it. What a waste.

A few people have suggested that Jude Law could have pulled off Ozymandias (and certainly would have been more age-appropriate). I know he isn't as charasmatic as Ledger, but he could have done the aloof genius thing pretty well.

I agree. In the absense of Ledger, Law would have made a very good Ozymandias. The point of the character is that he has to be someone the audience is not merely sympathetic with, but in AWE of. Which then makes the full scope of his meglomania far more terrifying. He really is, literally, supposed to be Hitler with the face of a God.

[jlhoots]

I'm going to go see Wendy & Lucy instead, which should be the absolute antithesis of Watchmen.

[Alexander]

I'm going to go see Wendy & Lucy instead, which should be the absolute antithesis of Watchmen.

Hey, Watchmen has dogs!

[ghost of miles]

and life goes on.............

A favorite Doonesbury moment, when Roland Hedley (the TV journalist) recites that to Zonker as his standard closing line. Zonker smiles and says, "Hard to dispute," to which Hedley replies: "You'd be surprised. Even with that we get letters."

Edited March 7, 2009 by ghost of miles

[BruceH]

Saw it today. Sadly, I agree with everything Alexander said. All I would add is that in terms of pace there is a peculiarly anti-cinematic, plodding step-by-step feel to it-- the pace, as Alexander suggests, of someone moving from panel to panel in a too literal minded, up-tight manner.

The reviewer on Fresh Air said something very similar. Funny, since Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons used every trick to stretch the comic book medium as much as possible, then it would seem that a film version that hewed to the spirit (if you'll pardon the expression) of the comic would use every cinematic trick they could think of to lend the story that kind of life on the screen. Instead, (according to this critic) Snyder artistically "embalmed" the material, leaving us with a curiously lifeless film, despite ratcheting up the violence as much as possible.

And I agree with Alexander that Jude Law could have been very good, almost perfect, as Adrien Veidt (Ozymandias.) "Veidt"---even his real last name is rather German.

[ghost of miles]

Looking forward to seeing Law as Dr. Watson in the forthcoming SHERLOCK HOLMES.

[Quincy]

I didn't get the need for some of the violence either, especially during the fake assassination attempt.

Strictly looking at some of the positives the costumes were good and it was interesting seeing so many panels recreated. Probably it was better not to confuse non-fans even more by changing how the cities are destroyed. Jeffrey Morgan as The Comedian was spot on! I too saw Jude Law in my head as Veidt - I guess we want that blue-eyed blonde look for the part. If the point was to make evil look like he might break out into "Take On Me" they succeeded.

Oh, my legs were cramped so I left during the credits (I know, bad movie fan), but I recall a song by Massive Attack being used for a trailer but I don't remember it being used in the film itself. Did I just zone out or did it appear during the credits or not at all?

[Jazzmoose]

Looking forward to seeing Law as Dr. Watson in the forthcoming SHERLOCK HOLMES.

Oh, god...another icon fucked with?

[ejp626]

Looking forward to seeing Law as Dr. Watson in the forthcoming SHERLOCK HOLMES.

Oh, god...another icon fucked with?

Well, not like there haven't been dozens of films, tv series, etc. Young Sherlock Holmes sticks out as a particularly non-canonical one. But reading this again, Jude Law makes sense as Holmes, but Watson???