Watchmen; nothing more than a pretty picture

Rating: 3/10 (14 March 2009)

In Watchmen, Zack Snyder paints a pretty picture, but after a while the paint chips away, and instead of revealing something deeper, what's left is nothing but blank canvas. It is easy to see why Alan Moore, the author of the graphic novel has disowned the film (he had his name removed from the film). True, the way Snyder frames the shots and the stylized action sequences are enjoyable and a nice departure from most action flicks, but this isn't enough to save Watchmen from becomes a boring and empty film. Whereas the novel is more than an action story (so I am told by friends who love the novel, for I have never read it) the film is simply that. So, why don't I feel at least satisfied about the fact that it's just a good action film? Because it is not. It is overlong, 2 hours and 42 minutes, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Snyder stuck close to the material and the novel's thick narrative requires this length. In order to justify the length the film must be interesting almost throughout. But Watchmen is not. Having absolutely no clue what it was about, the film felt endless. I thought I knew when it was going to end, but it kept going. Glancing at the glow of my watch was an occurrence almost as frequent as it was while I was sitting through Appaloosa (2008). In terms of a film's most important aspect, narrative structure, Watchmen is uneven. At times it is interesting, and to Snyder's credit, the film shows the heroes, with the exception of Dr. Manhattan, as humans effectively. However, often times the film is slow and overly gruesome. This type of film needs violence but overt severing of limbs? What purpose does it serve? To show Rorschach's insanity? We understand his psychosis without these scenes, yet they are included anyway. A graphic novel is not a film, and in Synder's eagerness to stay true to the source, he forgets what medium he is working in, fails to entertain and makes Watchmen a waste of time. C