"Watchmen" review
Now that I have a few minutes (and have shaken off the cobwebs from only a few hours of sleep), I think I can write a review of last night's midnight showing of "Watchmen"...
First of all, the movie isn't as horrible as has been widely reported. If this were any other movie, I'd probably be singing the praises of the work, encouraging others to see it at their earliest convenience. The problem is that this flick was based off one of the most successful and influential graphic novels of all time, and the source material is much better than what was portrayed on the screen.
Director Zack Snyder had the unenviable task of translating the beloved classic to the screen, and for the most part, he's successful. Going in, I knew that it would be impossible to hit every single note to properly build the story, and so the real measure of the movie comes through in what he omits/changes. In the first two hours of the film, his moves are forgivable and probably necessary. Some backstory is omitted, while others are expertly condensed for a faster read.
Where the movie falls apart is in the last 45 minutes, as Snyder takes us on a rollercoaster to the ending. Unfortunately, the car comes off the wheels and jumps on to an entirely new track. I sat in the theater in utter shock as the director goes in a different direction than the source material, and while it might have been necessary (especially given what was changed earlier), it just doesn't jibe with what I know to be Moore's true vision. The power of the villain's work is greatly diminished by the changes, and most unforgivable is the turning line's lack of power. If you know the source, there is one line in the story that slaps you in the face, but here it is merely an afterthought in the big picture of the race toward the end. Snyder builds a decent story, but he seriously drops the ball in the resolution.
For the most part, the acting was barely passable, especially in characters like Ozymandias and the second Silk Spectre. However, I'd like to highlight two bright spots: Jeffrey Dean Morgan's Comedian and Jackie Earl Haley's Rorschach. Morgan is amazing in his limited role (the Comedian primarily appears in flashbacks), enfusing his anti-hero/villain with a humanity we don't often see in this capacity. You're cheering for him, then you hate him, then you feel sorry for him - your opinion of Morgan changes from scene to scene, and the actor definitely ups his rep with this performance. Likewise, Haley becomes Rorschach in its entirety - a man driven by demons, focused on his little corner of the world, and unwilling to compromise in the face of unsurmountable odds. I'd always loved Rorschach in the original, and Haley's performance is flawless.
Patrick Wilson's Night Owl seems rudderless at times, but he holds it together well enough to do his part. Likewise for Billy Crudup's Dr. Manhattan, although I might have cast a more vocally imposing personality for the primarily-vocal part. More disappointing are the characters portrayed by Malin Akerman and Matthew Goode, the Silk Spectre and Ozymandias, respectively. Akerman seems to just fill the "token female" space, usually relying on a man for her interaction. She doesn't get much of a chance to shine on her own, a shame since the character could have played a much more vital role in the story. The biggest disappointment is Goode, although that's primarily because of the writing surrounding his part. He's allowed to turn it on closer to the end of the movie, but by then it's too little, too late.
As expected, the cinematography and CG was amazing and probably the reason to see the movie. Snyder's at his best when working in his style - grunting He-Man characters, explosions, effects galore. Where he loses it is in the dialogue, equal parts a failing of the screenwriters and the actors. Most lines are grossly over-the-top, a caracature of the comic book genre. Lost are the intricacies of Moore's script and dialogue, replaced by the director's Frank Miller-esque speech. Right in the middle is the music - it can be great, or it can be too much. You see it work in the opening title sequence, but it loses its effect in things like the requiste sex scene.
In the end, "Watchmen" isn't a bad action movie, but it fails horribly as an adaptation. Most fanboys were cautious to begin with - we've seen Alan Moore's work previously butchered in "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and "From Hell" - but we always wanted to believe that this would be the one that worked. Unfortunately, "Watchmen" works best as many had predicted - either as a graphic novel, or as a limited television series on a massive budget. Given the immensity of his task, Zack Snyder doesn't totally drop the ball, but he does turn in a film that is a disappointment to most who have anticipated this movie for almost a decade.
First of all, the movie isn't as horrible as has been widely reported. If this were any other movie, I'd probably be singing the praises of the work, encouraging others to see it at their earliest convenience. The problem is that this flick was based off one of the most successful and influential graphic novels of all time, and the source material is much better than what was portrayed on the screen.
Director Zack Snyder had the unenviable task of translating the beloved classic to the screen, and for the most part, he's successful. Going in, I knew that it would be impossible to hit every single note to properly build the story, and so the real measure of the movie comes through in what he omits/changes. In the first two hours of the film, his moves are forgivable and probably necessary. Some backstory is omitted, while others are expertly condensed for a faster read.
Where the movie falls apart is in the last 45 minutes, as Snyder takes us on a rollercoaster to the ending. Unfortunately, the car comes off the wheels and jumps on to an entirely new track. I sat in the theater in utter shock as the director goes in a different direction than the source material, and while it might have been necessary (especially given what was changed earlier), it just doesn't jibe with what I know to be Moore's true vision. The power of the villain's work is greatly diminished by the changes, and most unforgivable is the turning line's lack of power. If you know the source, there is one line in the story that slaps you in the face, but here it is merely an afterthought in the big picture of the race toward the end. Snyder builds a decent story, but he seriously drops the ball in the resolution.
For the most part, the acting was barely passable, especially in characters like Ozymandias and the second Silk Spectre. However, I'd like to highlight two bright spots: Jeffrey Dean Morgan's Comedian and Jackie Earl Haley's Rorschach. Morgan is amazing in his limited role (the Comedian primarily appears in flashbacks), enfusing his anti-hero/villain with a humanity we don't often see in this capacity. You're cheering for him, then you hate him, then you feel sorry for him - your opinion of Morgan changes from scene to scene, and the actor definitely ups his rep with this performance. Likewise, Haley becomes Rorschach in its entirety - a man driven by demons, focused on his little corner of the world, and unwilling to compromise in the face of unsurmountable odds. I'd always loved Rorschach in the original, and Haley's performance is flawless.
Patrick Wilson's Night Owl seems rudderless at times, but he holds it together well enough to do his part. Likewise for Billy Crudup's Dr. Manhattan, although I might have cast a more vocally imposing personality for the primarily-vocal part. More disappointing are the characters portrayed by Malin Akerman and Matthew Goode, the Silk Spectre and Ozymandias, respectively. Akerman seems to just fill the "token female" space, usually relying on a man for her interaction. She doesn't get much of a chance to shine on her own, a shame since the character could have played a much more vital role in the story. The biggest disappointment is Goode, although that's primarily because of the writing surrounding his part. He's allowed to turn it on closer to the end of the movie, but by then it's too little, too late.
As expected, the cinematography and CG was amazing and probably the reason to see the movie. Snyder's at his best when working in his style - grunting He-Man characters, explosions, effects galore. Where he loses it is in the dialogue, equal parts a failing of the screenwriters and the actors. Most lines are grossly over-the-top, a caracature of the comic book genre. Lost are the intricacies of Moore's script and dialogue, replaced by the director's Frank Miller-esque speech. Right in the middle is the music - it can be great, or it can be too much. You see it work in the opening title sequence, but it loses its effect in things like the requiste sex scene.
In the end, "Watchmen" isn't a bad action movie, but it fails horribly as an adaptation. Most fanboys were cautious to begin with - we've seen Alan Moore's work previously butchered in "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and "From Hell" - but we always wanted to believe that this would be the one that worked. Unfortunately, "Watchmen" works best as many had predicted - either as a graphic novel, or as a limited television series on a massive budget. Given the immensity of his task, Zack Snyder doesn't totally drop the ball, but he does turn in a film that is a disappointment to most who have anticipated this movie for almost a decade.