Watchmen, a review by Jon
Watchmen: Director's Cut
4 out of 5
The year is 1985 and super heroes have banded together to respond to the murder of one of their own. They soon uncover a sinister plot that puts all of humanity in grave danger. The super heroes fight to stop the impending doom, only to find themselves a target for annihilation. But if our super heroes are gone, who will save us?Unfilmable. That’s what they’ve always said of Alan Moore’s graphic novel masterpiece and Zack Snyder has proved it, despite making an excellent film in its own right which I had expected to not like. It’s an incredible achievement and deserves to be ranked in the top tier of the genre. At its best, it’s the sort of film Scorcese would make if he did comic book movies (and no, that isn’t just because of Travis Bickle-esque Rorschach). At its worst, it’s bloated and unfocused, but it’s hard for me to review, because I know the story so well. Maybe newbies don’t notice the bloating!
It has been adapted very well indeed and as close to the book as possible, although it misses a defining voice. It’s a character piece rather than action so casting was paramount and this is one of the best. Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl, Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan and especially Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach are superb, but there isn’t a duff note from any of the cast. After the success he had with 300, I’d thought Zack Snyder would have similarly treated this with digital style over substance, so it’s impressive that it feels very solid, old fashioned even at times, and the actors are given room even in the action scenes, which are largely bone-crunching, gravity defying fights. In fact, I should take a step back: this is far superior in all respects to 300, and that was great fun! I loved the soundtrack and the frequent juxtaposition that the film found within the plot. If I was being really picky, I’d have preferred less slow-mo. Heck, Snyder could have shaved 20 minutes off the running time, just by using normal speed!
Slow-mo or “normal-mo”, the effects are fantastic, particularly on the big blue Doctor (plus no cheesy attempts to hide his nudity, which is essential to the character) and again, it’s commendable that the cast are not swallowed up. It’s actually very evocative of the 80s and the emphasis is on quality film composition, not set-pieces, with cool effects taking the background more often than not. The detail is on a massive scale, especially with press cuttings and in the flashback sequences. It is very much a film, designed for cinema, and not just a knock-off rerun of the book.
Snyder obviously loves and respects the source material and treats it with confidence more than reverence, but his film is just too long. Yet, parts still feel rushed and I can’t think what could have been easily lost (maybe the sex, but even that has a point). That’s why it would never have worked perfectly and whatever I say from now on, please be in no doubt that Zack Snyder has done a marvellous job that I doubt others could have even matched. All its problems come from trying to adapt the Citizen Kane of comics and Snyder has done a Peter Jackson level of work to produce as good a film as possible.
The comic teases out the plot in only the way a comic can and it just doesn’t lend itself to a film narrative. At least it’s demonstrating what a vibrant, progressive and valid medium comic writing can be, because this story is so layered and intelligent. It’s all there, but the pacing is better and the focus sharper in the book; the key difference is “third person” perspective, while the film has to keep switching focus between characters. The Ultimate Cut promises to reinstate the ‘Tales From The Black Freighter’ animation, making it even longer, which actually would help! Those sequences in the book form a parallel metaphor for the main story and would form chapters in the film (I did miss the little kid on the kerb. He only appeared about twice yet could be that “third-person”). Currently the plot comes across as confused and the Rorschach’s Journal device sits awkwardly with the other strands.
Then we have the ending, a brilliantly delivered change from the book and Snyder has kept it feeling organic, not jarring or shoehorned in. But it doesn’t make sense to the overall idea of Watchmen. (See spoiler section below).
Plus you could say the timing can’t work, but film producers are not known for patience! They’ve been trying to make this bloody thing for years. Watchmen the book represented a milestone in the superhero genre, not least for the deep political roots. A violent, almost nihilistic, yet painfully nostalgic fable, it gave comics an almighty kick up the arse and its reputation still towers. Film has inherited the genre from comics and still largely doesn’t know what to do with it. Only a couple of years after
The Dark Knight, a retrospective, nostalgic re-write of the formula is not needed. I bet a lot of newcomers to the story found it tough going and the more adult scenes rather awkward. Watchmen should have been to superheroes what
Unforgiven was to cowboys, but it just isn’t time yet.
As such, Zack Snyder’s very fine and adult film, which marks him out as a serious talent, is merely an also-ran when put next to Nolan’s Batman films or even
Kick-Ass. A real shame, because Watchmen makes Mark Millar’s story look positively naive and juvenile. Still, it does rank very high, certainly above the Spider-Man and X-Men movies.
The endings are broadly the same, except the book uses a fake alien invasion in a “WTF?” moment for the world and the reader. Something so completely left-field it scares the shit out of the governments that it could happen again to any of them. They have to work together.
The film wisely circumvents the alien squid, but in doing so removes that absolute “WTF?” reaction. All through the story, it’s nuclear this, nuclear that, nuclear now, nuclear something! What’s the big ending? Nuclear.
To me, despite the shock, the Governments would still recognise the tech as something they can achieve and therefore control.
A bigger issue is Adrian. In the book, he destroys half of New York and that should be shocking enough. We are convinced though of his intentions; he may be an enigma, but he isn’t evil. A huge death toll for the greater good, but the world is stable and will absorb this horror. In the film, he wipes out multiple cities! Millions upon millions of lives. I can’t comprehend how he can do that and still be the enigma. I still don’t see him as evil, but he is definitely insane.
Of course, Snyder did have the problem of flattening half of New York. Post 9/11, that was always going to look exploitive. Alan Moore had the considerable advantage of releasing his story when the politics were more relevant.
Users: 0
May 18, 2024, 08:39:09 PM
). Being a Troma like film, you already know what to expect : bad acting, cheap special effect, gratuitious nudity and juvenile humour. Yes all of this is there in this film, but this isn't really the reason why I've bought it (Troma isn't really one of my favourite studio). I've bought it because Jamie Gillis (one of my favorite American actor) have a role in the movie and Hasil Adkins was a really cool redneck. The film itself isn't too bad, even if the humour is juvenile it's funny (certainly more than the idiotic ones I've watch in 
It was simply cute to see Angel croaking on that stage. And the jousting on the middle of the main road: great idea. I liked that episode.