Review: Watchmen
Filed under: Action, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Warner Brothers, Theatrical Reviews, Comic/Superhero/Geek

Prepare to be bludgeoned. Watchmen is sledgehammer entertainment, an action epic with tremendous production values that acknowledges good and evil but is much more interested in things that go boom.
As director Zack Snyder amply demonstrated in his previous adaptations of other people's strikingly original source material (Dawn of the Dead and 300), he is more than up to the task of creating a multitude of dynamic, viscerally-exciting action sequences. As a bonus, there are small moments in Watchmen that prompt warm, unexpected laughter, skillfully-recreated scenes that inspire pure fanboy bliss, and one lengthy flashback segment that is entirely transcendent, as dazzling, thoughtful, and emotionally-stirring as anything I've seen in recent years.
And then there's the rest of the movie, which crams in a remarkably high percentage of the plot points from the original Watchmen series of comic books by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons and faithfully includes tiny details, classic panels and a checklist of characters. Yet it skims over deeper reflections about masked crime fighters, superheroes, the essential nature of man, and the future of the world. It's like someone decided the alphabet was too long: most of the consonants are still there, but Watchmen is missing a couple of vowels.
The film features a bewildering assemblage of performances, with juicy turns by Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Jackie Earle Haley, wildly uneven, uncertain performances by Malin Akerman and Patrick Wilson, and sleepy monotone pronouncements by Billy Crudup and Matthew Goode. Some of the actors sound as though they're delivering their lines for the first time, reading off cue cards.
Watchmen begins with the murder of a superhero and then quickly sketches in the back story of an alternative universe in which masked vigilantes have been outlawed. The few who remain either work for the government or are retired. Set in 1985, it's a world that closely resembles our own during the last days of the Cold War in the 1980s. Russia has invaded Afghanistan and the US wants them out. The doomsday clock is ticking towards midnight, with the threat of nuclear annihilation in the air. In the world of Watchmen, the Vietnam War ended in 1971, Watergate never happened, and Richard Nixon is still President.
The murder of The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) reverberates among the remaining superheroes. Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), who may be insane but has definitely ignored the government ban on his crime fighting activities, investigates and quickly discovers a possible conspiracy, putting the lives of all the masked heroes in danger. He warns Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson, channeling Chevy Chase), who is living quietly amongst a huge basement stuffed with elaborate gadgets, and Ozymandias (Matthew Goode), who has used his superhero past to build a business empire.
Rorschach also tries to warn blue-skinned Doctor Manhattan (Billy Crudup) and his longtime paramour Laurie, AKA Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman). Doctor Manhattan works for the government and helped end the Vietnam War with The Comedian. But ever since suffering a horrific accident that transformed him into the god-like, super-powered creature called Doctor Manhattan, he has been steadily losing touch with humanity, causing conflict in his relationship with Laurie. Laurie also harbors resentment toward The Comedian, who tried to rape her mother, the original Silk Spectre (Carla Gugino), and seeks solace in the company of her old friend Nite Owl.
That's a lot of ground to cover, and the film isn't in a hurry to cover it, taking the better part of an hour just to establish the world. There are periodic jolts of action to try and keep things lively, as well as some of the most egregiously on-the-nose music cues I've ever heard. Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'" under the title sequence was fine (Bob Dylan's "All Along the Watchtower" is cited in the book, and Jimi Hendrix's version of that tune shows up later), but Simon and Garfunkel's "The Sounds of Silence" for a funeral scene was far too obvious, and Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" to accompany Vietnam helicopters had to be a joke, right? Was it meant as an homage to Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now? Was Zack Snyder trying to reclaim the songs for a new generation? If so, who would be claiming that K.C. and the Sunshine Band's "I'm Your Boogie Man" was the right (or even a fittingly ironic) soundtrack for a street riot? By the time Tears For Fears' "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" started playing softly under a scene with Ozymandias, I was half-convinced, half-fearful that Watchmen might become this generation's Forrest Gump.
Speaking of distractions, it was difficult to ignore Doctor Manhattan's big blue penis, dangling like a participle with no tomorrow. In the book, of course, you never actually saw his smaller than average genitals move; it was an outward show of the character's increasing disconnect with humanity that clothes served no purpose for him, so why wear them?
What both the music and the nudity point to are the challenges of fidelity and integrity in adapting a film from another medium. What is only hinted at on the printed page can be fleshed out, enhanced, and extended for the big screen. On the other hand, what is considered extraneous or non-essential can be minimized, reduced, or excised. So what did Snyder and screenwriters David Hayter and Alex Tse choose to keep, what was left behind, and what was added?
The attention to detail is extraordinary, starting with the look of the characters and their costumes (Rorschach's mask looks awesome), and extending right down to props and signs. A fair amount of dialogue is lifted straight from the book, along with a number of individual shots that recreate individual panels. Nearly all the basic plot points are intact. Background material is smoothly integrated.
Left behind were various elements that, combined, provided a human perspective on the proceedings: the newsstand vendor and his customers, excerpts from the pirate comic Tales of the Black Freighter, the home life of the psychiatrist treating Rorschach, the fiery tabloid editor and his sloppy assistant, and so forth. They helped the original Watchmen to convey a feeling of dread, of mortal concern, of a coming apocalypse. It's not light entertainment, and most of the darker, more apocalyptic intimations have been left out.
Snyder added a few light / grisly / explicit touches of his own: a pool of blood that forms a smiley face; the bloody, pulpy aftermath of a superhero "rescue," a street prostitute exposing her breasts, and so forth. One character gets his hands cut off instead of having his throat sliced. The ending ... well, I'll avoid spoilers and come back to its muted effectiveness at another time.
What frustrates me as much as anything is that one transcendent sequence, which is a brilliant distillation of an entire issue (or a chapter in the collected graphic novel edition). It's so good that it made me wish for the rest of the movie to rise to that level. But things come crashing down to earth in the next scene with a shot of President Nixon's wacky long nose. It gets a laugh, yes, but it also breaks the spell that was the best thing in the movie up to that point. From that point forward, the action scoots along. Other sequences are memorable -- Rorschach in prison, Archie returning to flight -- but nothing quite lives up to that flashback segment.
Were the right choices made? Watchmen is a lighter version of very dark material. On its own, the movie is an efficient adrenaline delivery machine, occasionally taking flight and occasionally sputtering, but most often just motoring down a long road with colorful scenery to pass the time.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
3-04-2009 @ 10:27PM
Matthew Mac said...
If they end up doing the limited release of the Director's Cut, I'd be interested in having a 'revisited' review. Some of the stuff you mentioned being left out I remember was directly reference in the deleted scenes cut for time.
Nice review anyway (I think you liked it?); is there any chance of a second opinion of someone who doesn't have the book to compare it to?
Reply
3-16-2009 @ 6:52AM
jeter1965 said...
This movie was an excellent genre-movie that, due to a R-rating, will not have the support of the whole demographic that usually supports the genre. This was definately not a family movie. If the producers would have left out the soft porn, gore, and a few choice words (that are not needed) they would have been able to appease the massess. I mean they are in the business of making money, right? This movie will not do well financially although it was excellently transformed from graphic to the big screen.
3-04-2009 @ 10:45PM
adrian said...
I keep hearing vastly different things. I've heard nothing but praise for Patrick Wilson, who is the only one on the cast I really like, though Jackie Earle Haley is perfectly cast as well.
Reply
3-04-2009 @ 10:55PM
k. said...
Re: Ride of the Valkyries, wasn't that in the beginning of the excerpts from Hollis' (orig. Nite Owl's) book? I thought he mentioned it in regards to the saddest moment in his life. If you consider that nod to the text it's a pretty good call including it. Everbody Wants to Rule the World? Can't say the same for that. Eager to see how it pans out!
Reply
3-04-2009 @ 11:33PM
Peter Martin said...
Yes, you're absolutely right; I'd forgotten about that. So the reference is more of a nod than a joke. Watching the movie, though, "Apocalypse Now" was the first thing I thought of.
3-05-2009 @ 5:13AM
Mech said...
No its not at all fitting to the scene. I thought it was a joke when it came on the big screen.
There are nods to the book alright, but they are only nods and wont carry it enought to make it a fan favourite.
3-05-2009 @ 5:55PM
Autumn said...
Ride of the Valkyries is mentioned in Hollis' "book excerpt" in the graphic novel. It is referencing his saddest memory about his dad's boss finding out that his wife cheated on him, he closes the door, blares ride of the valkyries and kills himself later on that night.
To me it didn't really seem like the reviewer had read the graphic novel, or didn't remeber much of it when writing the review.
3-05-2009 @ 6:06PM
Christine C said...
A note to both you and the reviewer: The Wagner piece you are referring to is "Flight of the Valkyrie". I am 99% certain I am correct on that. I will be seeing the film over the weekend, as my local midnight show sold out in less than a day. :)
3-04-2009 @ 11:17PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
Obviously a fanboy wrote the review. I'll be honest - I've read two graphic novels in my life. The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen. I found Watchmen intriguing for the first 2/3rds and then...well then it became clear who the "villain" was and I really didn't care anymore. There was nothing dark or shocking about Watchmen as a story. I don't know why people found the concepts unusual...they're rather tired ideas really.
Visually this movie looks stunning. But if it's anything like Snyder's other films it will be nice to look at and one should ignore the dialogue and acting. If the film adheres closely to book's final 1/3rd that'll be a shame as the climax of Watchmen is just ho-hum. There's nothing revelatory or interesting about that end. Sorry... not a fanboy. Just a fan of fiction and good storytelling.
Reply
3-04-2009 @ 11:47PM
Peter Martin said...
Not sure that I qualify as a fanboy, but I read 'Watchmen' last fall for the first time and was thoroughly impressed. Like you, it was only the second graphic novel I'd read at that point (the other was also 'The Dark Knight Returns'), though it motivated me to start reading comic books again for the first time since I was an occasional reader as a kid.
I think the ideas were much fresher when the book was published more than 20 years ago and obviously think more of it than you do. I liked the dialogue and acting in 'Dawn of the Dead' more than '300,' thoughly clearly '300' had a very startling visual approach.
3-04-2009 @ 11:48PM
Joe said...
By the way you give no spoilers for the end of the movie I take it they changed it that's to bad.
Now I want to know how long is this is it really 3 hours plus or not. I so hope it is with so many things that need to be covered.
You say the Watchmen movie is not as dark as the original graphic novel. Is it a big change or is it because film is different then what you can show in a book.
Over all though Watchmen sounds like it will be good movie.
Reply
3-05-2009 @ 12:00AM
Peter Martin said...
I didn't time it, Joe, but the official running time is 163 minutes (2 hours, 43 minutes). Of course, the credits are long, so it's a bit less than time as far as the movie itself.
For me, the lightening of the tone was discernible enough to try and write about in the review. "Tone" is touchy ad difficult to describe, but that was my reaction to the film. I may have read more into the book and its meaning than was intended.
The movie is very dark when it comes to explicit violence, bloodshed, profanity, and doesn't stint on the nudity, so you can be assured that there was no compromise as far as that's ocncerned.
3-05-2009 @ 5:10AM
Mech said...
Just saw the watchmen and man is it disappointing.
The sex scene is a joke? or what? (you'll know what i mean when you see it.)
Fans prepare to be disappointed. Good review. explains the problems with the film better than i ever could. As for the bits of the film that made the audience laugh, i found this very annoying. Its not ment to be funny and takes away from the seriousness of the story.
The film lifts you up at parts just to come crashing down with what i can only call basic film cheese.
Reply
3-05-2009 @ 12:46PM
DanJack said...
I'm more in your camp Tick. I really thought the first 75% or so was brilliant, then the writing got really really lazy IMHO. However, I have noticed that is often the trend with Alan Moore. He seems to have good ideas, but I think his own feeling of self importance has led to him sometimes really blowing the endings in his own stories. He doesn't do conclusions well.
Reply
3-05-2009 @ 9:25AM
Bryan said...
I don't think you guys can see the forest for the trees. This is by far the most faithful adaptation I have ever seen, I would say fully half the movie is as perfect a recreation of corresponding scenes from the graphic novel as humanly possible. A big reason the characters spoke the way they did was to be the archetypes they're supposed to represent. The changes were hard for me to swallow at first as a true fanboy but gradually I've come to realize that the benefits more than outweigh the costs. Watchmen is visceral, powerful and immensely fun for fans.
goodmoviebadmovie.blogspot.com
Reply
3-05-2009 @ 9:58AM
Ted Rand said...
Another comic book movie? I guess this will be good for people who still read funny books- I never saw the appeal of funny books-and don't intent to waste my time of such infantile rubbish.
Reply
3-06-2009 @ 8:09AM
A. Day said...
Yet here you are reading a review of the movie. Hurrm.
3-09-2009 @ 8:08PM
Josh said...
Dear Non-fanboys / non-geeks / non-dorks: Don't be too close-minded. This is not your typical "funny book" movie. You might want to give it a shot. I fear that many parents are going to think that this is the newest superhero movie and take their kids to go see it. That would be a HUGE mistake. It's a comentary on corruption, fear and the grey area between good and bad. I read the book and saw the movie. Both were very thought provoking and a bit confusing at times. It is a dark story that is extreemly visually pleasing. I think the opening credits scenes were amazing. I will definately be seeing it again. I repeat: THIS IS NOT A MOVIE FOR KIDS.
3-11-2009 @ 5:53PM
Tublecane said...
If it sounds as if the actors are reading off of cue-cards, that's probably precisely because they lifted lines directly from the comic. Seriously, there's better dialogue on Saturday morning cartoons. So don't blame the actors. "Star Wars" had the same problem; some dialogue just can't be spoken naturally.
As for the excerpts from newspaper articles, biographies, etc., there was little choice but to excise them. Those are literary devices. Film is not a literary genre. They might have inserted the Black Freighter short film, but it seems people are already complaining about the running time.
By the way, in my opinion the pirate comic was the only truly artful piece of storytelling in the book. Short as it was, it managed to touch on all the themes of the larger story. Best allegory for the liberal perspective on nuclear war I've ever read.
Reply
3-05-2009 @ 1:10PM
Asta said...
I haven't read the source material, so I can only judge the film on it's own merits and I was deeply disappointed. Peter, your review hits on many of the issues I had. Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Jackie Earle Haley were excellent, but it was sad that the only two characters I cared about were an asshole and sociopath, respectively. Billy Crudup (who, admittedly, I've never been a fan of) and Matthew Goode were horribly miscast in important roles and couldn't muster a single emotion between them.
Two days later I'm still trying to figure out what the heck they were thinking with the musical choices. 'The Time They Are A Changin' was perhaps a too obvious choice, but at least it's inclusion made sense to me. All the other songs seemed randomly thrown int. And with the use of 'Hallelujah', one of my favorite songs, I don't know whether to just find it laughable (I did laugh during that scene) or find it offensive.
I was further disappointed to figure out who the villain was about twenty minutes into the picture. I understand that many of the people going to see the film have read the graphic novel and know how the film will end (mostly, since I understand some elements changed), but for people like myself with little to no prior knowledge of the source material, it should not have been that easy.
Reply