Watchmen
2009
161 minutes
Rated R
by Scott Mendelson
Watchmen is a motion picture of uncommon ambition, technical perfectionism, and inspired artistry. It is also based on a beloved story that is not and was never terribly cinematic in nature. While I fully intended to discuss the film as a stand alone product, regardless of its success or failure as a literary adaptation, the finished product is so completely tied to its source that a viewer is almost required to have some understanding of the original book to at least appreciate, if not completely understand the movie. As I watched this epic unfold, I kept unconsciously referencing the original graphic novel for context, to fill in the blanks that the film itself did provide. As a faithful adaptation, it is a success. As an emotional tone poem, it is occasionally powerful. But as a stand alone feature film, intended to draw in and entertain the uninitiated, it's slightly problematic. Complete newbies will likely understand the broad strokes, but the subtleties of the material and the thematic ideologies may be lost under the surface, leaving non fans wondering what all the fuss was about.
What you need to know going in - The film is set in an alternate time line, one where non super-powered crime fighters roamed the cities before and after World War II. In this world, an accident turned scientist Jon Osterman into the all-powerful, all-blue demi-god Dr. Manhattan during the height of the Vietnam war. It's now 1985. Dr. Manhattan almost single-handedly won for the US in 'Nam, Richard Nixon has been re-elected four times, and non-government-sanctioned crime fighters have been outlawed. However, the use of Dr. Manhattan as a weapon started a nuclear arms race with the USSR and the two super powers seem on the brink of nuclear annihilation. Meanwhile, the murderous, psychotic crime fighter known as Rorschach stumbles upon the homicide of former super hero turned government spy The Comedian, a crime which may involve his old costumed buddies from the 1960s.
Ironically, for a story that is considered the pinnacle of super hero fiction, the book and film both succeed best at the smaller character moments. The first thirty minutes are sensational, as the murder of The Comedian gives way to a stunningly gorgeous title sequence (where the alternate time line is somewhat laid out in a montage set to Bob Dylan's 'Times They Are A Changing'). This then segues into introductory moments, where the heroes of old are introduced in one form or another. Focus shifts between the still operating Rorschach (a crazed homicidal imp of a man, completely unbending in his pessimistic ideology) and the long retired Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson, in a phenomenally subtle performance), who spends his days drinking with the original 1940s Nite Owl. For a good half hour, the film is a stunningly moving ode to regret, loneliness, and paths not taken, as our former heroes join together to bury one of their own, a man who cast a dark shadow over all of them.
But then, the film loses something. The human interaction and poignancy give way to cumbersome exposition and flashbacks. For nearly the entire remaining two hours, the film becomes episodic and disjointed, and the excitement dies. The production is handsome, the acting is exceptional, and the special effects are mostly effective. But, at the end of the day, Watchmen is not an exciting story. So, what came across as curious on the page often feels boring on the screen.
When the focus is on the friendship and eventual romance between Dan Dreiberg/The Nite Owl and Malin Ackerman's Sally Spector/The Silk Spectre II (she was forced into super heroism by her mother, who is played in a few wonderful scenes by Carla Gugino), the film works as a sad story of lost opportunity and unfulfilled potential. They are, alas, the only two characters who really are just regular human beings. Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) frequently monologues allegedly deep thoughts about the inconsequence of existence, all too often in the same monotone voice he uses in his 'Priceless' Visa commercials, but in the end he is more of a plot device. Rorschach (Jackie Lee Haley) only registers during the brief moments where he is unmasked, when we can see the hate and rage underneath the white rorschach blot mask (with the mask, he speaks in a growl that will remind viewers of Christian Bale's McGruff the Crime Bat). Matthew Goode, as the inexplicably optimistic Adrian Veidt (a former hero who quit and built a vast fortune selling his image) does what he can with a somewhat one-note role. Jeffrey Dean Morgan has too little time as The Comedian to register as anything other than a government-sanctioned mass murderer.
Perhaps the problem is that so much of the original novel's appeal was its relative freshness. The depiction of heroes as dysfunctional and possibly crazed was a breath of fresh air 1987. Watchmen was a deconstruction of the super hero stories of the 1940s and 1950s, with a skewered satirical dart aimed at the 'more serious' work coming down the pike in the 1970s. Its real world setting and real world problems, the idea that masked vigilantes may be ill-equipped to handle the world's biggest problems, was somewhat of a fresh idea in 1986. Now, this specific 'what would happen if people really put on a costume and fought crime' mythology isn't any more realistic than the regular super hero stories. In fact, the broadly colorful costumes, heavily stylized action violence, and epic, world-balancing narrative actually renders it almost campy in comparison to more intimate, real-world comic book entertainments like The Dark Knight. It's themes of super heroism as a form of emotional and sexual release have been co-opted in films like Unbreakable, and the very idea of dark, gritty, ultra-violent super hero stories have become so commonplace in the last twenty years that it's actually the status quo.
Watchmen was a story of its time, and it still works as an individual character study. But its themes and ideas are no longer ground breaking, and they may not be relevant anymore. Our current fears reside not in instant nuclear annihilation by a state power, but in slow death by environmental and economic collapse. Without going into details, the slightly altered ending makes the villain's ideology even less plausible, considering how we now know how mass populations react to um... certain events.
In the end, Zack Snyder does deserve credit for not making the material more cinematic than it naturally is. Yes, there is a little more violence, a touch more action, and plenty of stylized slow motion (too much, as the film feels like the 161 minutes that it is), but the story is still basically retired super heroes talking about their old days while trying to solve a solitary mystery. He is more or less faithful in incident, and completely faithful in tone and spirit (my fear that he would make the dour, depressing story more 'cool' is unfounded). Snyder has made a suitable companion piece to a ground breaking piece of literature. He has obtained fine performances from his cast, especially Patrick Wilson. And the technical merits of this picture absolutely demand big screen viewing. But, as a stand alone motion picture, it is not quite a success. It is plodding, occasionally boring, and it struggles for relevancy in a time where its admittedly intelligent and thought provoking ideas and themes have been stolen by better big screen entertainments. For better or worse, we now have a faithful live action motion picture of Watchmen.
Grade: 3/5
‘Watchmen’ premieres, early reviews mixed - More news and other ...
Matthew Goode from Watchmen - at Film.com
Watchmen Review: 10 reasons you’ve got to watch Watchmen - mirror ...
Watchmen Review - Read Variety's Analysis Of The Movie Watchmen
So, what would have had to have been an at least a trilogy to be done as faithfully as Snyder attempted to, was turned into a superficial, moderately interesting film. The only character that was the least bit interesting was Rorschach, who was actually well-played by Jackie Earle Haley, who is something of a 70s icon himself (from "The Bad News Bears" and "Breaking Away"). But even with that character, only the surface was scratched.
Ozymandias was probably the worst-handled of the characters. From the film, you don't really get the sense, like in the comic, that he is not only rich and smart, but he's well-liked. He's supposed to be above suspicion, not the guy who seems like a James Bond villain throughout. In the comic, Ozymandias is a guy that everyone idolizes, not just a rich dou%^& bag.
Loved it.
You don't have to read the book, you just have to have some understanding of Geo-politics (i.e. Energy Wars) and America's post world war 2 history.
It's an instant classic which I will purchase when available.
"You people don't understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me!"
Can't wait to use it.
This film, though close to 3 hours, kept me interested throughout - I only checked my watch 1 time (for me this is a tell tale sign of boredom or plot confusion).
If they didn't shove the entire 12-book series into one film, they could have done a prequel/sequel, but I think that the flashbacks are necessary for the present time's storyline.
3.5 stars out of 4
A few points to note...first, I was a huge fan of the Incredibles, and now know where it got most of its plotline (I actually have a little less respect for Incredibles, now that I see how the plotline of 'outlawed' superheroes, who are out of shape, and flashbacks to the 'glory days')
Second...I have never in my life seen such a homo-erotic film on screen, which didn't contain a 'xxx' in its ratings. Throughout movie history, male full-frontal nudity has been almost completely scrapped from 'R' and less rated films - this year's Sex in the City gave a slight peek. While most of this nudity was animated (unless of course Crudup IS that endowed), I found it a welcome change to the status quo - women are always shown nude, while men are so with 'trick' photography (i.e. Austin Powers) so I feel in this, Watchmen is extremely groundbreaking.
Third...I loved how in the end the human (Ozmandis) taught the diety (Manhattan) about human nature and 'outsmarted' such an intellect.
Though many fanboys may chime in with disagreement, I found Watchmen to be the best film I've seen on screen since The Dark Knight.
As for The Incredibles, we must acknowledge that Pixar pretty much rips off most of its movies from other sources.
Toy Story was very similar to The Christmas Toy (a Jim Henson project from the 1986).
A Bug's Life was the basic Seven Samurai/Three Amigos plot (which was later adapted into Galaxy Quest)
Monsters Inc was very similar to the 1989 kid's horror comedy Little Monsters
Finding Nemo = An American Tail
The Incredibles - a dash of Watchmen, a touch of Unbreakable and Fantastic Four, with 007 tossed in for good measure.
Cars - a wholesale copy of Doc Hollywood - the only one that's so close that it could be litigious.
Granted, Toy Story 2, Rataouille, and Wall-E are pretty original in concept (Wall E has similar ideas to Idiocracy, but that's probably more of a coincidence). Whether or not this lessens the esteem of Pixar is up to you. I still love many of their films (I'd say The Incredibles actually improves on the super hero themes that it plays with), but let's not forget that they aren't the world's most original story tellers.
I guess everything these days is a ripoff in some way or another.
P.S. LOL @ Cars comparison to Doc Hollywood. I was wondering why the story felt somewhat familiar.
Ebert said it's about "the dilemma of functioning in a world losing hope," and super heroes, the ultimate expression of individualistic hope and power, are effective symbols in contrast.
Favorite bits: when asked what happened to the American dream, the mass-murdering Comedian chortles, "It came true! This is it!" And the uncompromising Rorschach's silently hurt feelings and apology when Nite Owl dresses him down for being a bad friend.
Most reviewers grasp the psychological dimension. The SF level was to say, if we change one thing about our reality (superheroes exist) how would that change our world? And really think that through.
Politics and religion are almost completely absent for comics (at least as of two decades ago). That's nearly as true today, and the observation could be extended to most movie and TV as well. These characters have political and moral views. This world has a politics. These "do gooders" eventually come face-to-face with the ineffectualness of fixing society by only dealing with the symptoms of "crime".
The Comedian deals by aligning himself with the right-wing US government. Others give up. Some burn out, but doggedly persist in the original mission, becoming more violent and crazy in the process. Dr. Manhattan looses interest in the world of humanity all together, pursuiting scientific knowledge (even as his discoveries are put to political purposes). One character puts his mind and resources to the task of solving the big problems of war and scarcity: do the ends justify the means?
The politics of Watchmen (the graphic novel especially) are interesting and challenging. Each characters worldview is plausible and coherent.
This column’s writer, and some others, underestimate the sophistication of movie-goers – especially those who are interested in a film of this genre. We’re hungry for a clever inter-active experience that allows us to construct meaning and interpretation.
It’s been 15 years since Pulp Fiction and you thought Watchmen was hard to follow?
The ramp up of American life with a costumed community was beautifully outlined in the film’s title sequence (set to “The Times They are a-Changin’”) and confidently sets the tone for all that follows. Well, almost. Although the nostalgia of the opening sequence moves continually darker, images quite dark and quite violent are saved for later.
The film’s colors and images are simply beautiful. It’s a masterpiece.
I can’t wait to see it again... and again...
Still, I loved the book and I loved the movie. I think almost anyone who enjoyed the comic will like the film. It is incredibly true to the story except for a few changes at the end which I actually thought improved upon the original ending (much like omitting the burning of the Shire in the LOTR movies) and made it much more believable. I thought the casting was SPOT ON, especially Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. I saw it in IMAX and will definitely see it again in the theater. I have been waiting for this movie for years and I was really wary of what they would do with it, and I was completely satisfied and highly recommend it- so long as you don't need your movie's resolution to be wrapped up in neat little packages with clear good vs bad conflict.
I agree that the absence of this storyline did take away from the feel and flow of the story line, but there was really just no way to fit it in for a theatrical release. I'm fine with waiting for it on the director's cut.
I hope, though, that they don't make a sequel, as some people are saying. It was a complete story on its own.
I've never seen that come up in a list on genre-changing comic books from that era, unless you're restricting it specifically to superheroes.
The third mentioned is usually "The Sandman" by Neil Gaiman (whose last novel turned movie adaptation was "Stardust", I believe). And of the top three, Sandman is truly is the un-filmmable one because it has a sprawling plot structure with no action-adventure, tons of secondary character who often are the focus of the story, and the central character is, essentially, the personification of part of what makes the universe possible to live in.
What I watched was, to me, much closer to what I hoped for than what I feared it would be. It's hard for me to imagine how well this movie works for someone who is not already familiar with the material. (There was a man sitting near me who did not have any familiarity with the story, and he seemed to enjoy it.) As with most movies, some will like it and some will not. I hope this movie will make a good profit in the theatres, as encouragement to other filmmakers and studios to try risky material. It will do very well in the DVD release--this is a movie some people are going to study closely in the coming years.
This is a movie I can recommend... but it's one that might need several watchings to really get the full arc of the story. I also would like to recommend the original graphic novel; it is not as fresh and unexpected as the story was when it first came out, mostly because so many others have been influenced by it ever since.