Well...alright.

Rating: 7/10 (14 January 2011)

Being the ridiculous fan boy that I am, I don't think I need to say how disappointed I was with the movie when I first saw it. I'll cover the reasons why a little bit later on. Now, this film really needs to be given some credit. It scored some brownie points for all Watchmen fans by doing one thing in particular: Existing.
Yes, that's right. It's existence merits success. Inside one of my paperbacks, there is an interview with Lawrence Gordon proclaiming his coming Watchmen movie (as he'd recently obtained the rights). Dozens of screenwriters, producers, and directors have all attempted to make a Watchmen movie for two and a half decades, but nobody but Zack Snyder was successful.
Instead of criticizing what was left out, I'll criticize what was kept (or added) in.
***MUSIC***
On the whole, I give Zack Snyder credit for playing the songs that were depicted in the novel at the correct moments in the movie. However, there are several instances in which the music is entirely opposed to the tone of the scene. Example: Comedian's funeral. Really? "The Sound of Silence?" We're lamenting the death of a conscienceless, murderous rapist, who also happens to be an American hero and "caped" crusader. I'm not sure that Simon and Garfunkel's poppy, upbeat sound is appropriate. The *actual* sound of silence would have worked perfectly for this scene.
***ACTING***
On the whole, I was content with the acting. However, I could not stand a single moment of Malin Ackerman's acting. One of the most powerful moments in the novel is when she's holding a handgun with both hands shaking with tears streaming down her face pointing it at Adrian and simply says, "You're an a******," because when you're filled with emotion or rage or anxiety, your mind tends to go blank. All she can do is communicate her emotion, and barely, at that. Remember what happened in the movie? She holds the gun with one hand in an almost sassy fashion, looks at Adrian almost seductively, and says, "You're *such* an a******." What was that? There was no emotion. There was just...sarcasm? Sass? Why should the audience care about what she's doing if she's just being indignant? The acting for Laurie's mother (Silk Spectre the first) wasn't any better. One of my favorite moments in the novel was when Sally goes over to her bed, picks up the picture of The Minute Men, kisses the picture of the Comedian, and begins crying. She'd finally come to terms with A) What Eddie had done to her, B) That he was dead, C) That she loved him, and D) That she would never see him again. It's very powerful, very sad, and provides some closure for Sally. What happens in the movie? She picks up the picture, maybe kisses it, says something, and then puts it down. It was so boring and unimpressive that I can hardly remember it. Why should the audience care about that? There was absolutely nothing that would capture the audience; no emotion, no character development, so certainly nothing memorable about it.
Last bit, and thanks for reading this far. I didn't expect to rant.
***VULGARITY***
Alan Moore has never been one to be prude. In fact, there is nudity in just about every original work of his I've ever read (V for Vendetta, Watchmen, LXG, Miracleman...), and that is perfectly fine. Perfectly natural. But he depicted it with class. One or two panels to get the point across. He would never dwell on it, because the bodies of the characters aren't important--the emotion behind the sexuality IS important. Well, what happened in the movie? I remember sex scenes lasting an almost comically long time. In fact, I specifically remember (during the first scene between Jon and Laurie) thinking the thoughts, "...Okay. ...I get it. ...Alright. ...You guys are having sex, I get it. ...For god's sake, enough." 5-10 seconds would probably have provided a comfortable window of time to illustrate Jon's third hand and Laurie's surprise. Instead they kept it going for maybe 6 times that frame of time. Same story with the sex scene inside Archie. I get that Malin Ackerman is the film's major sex appeal, but, to quote Studio 60, "They'll think you're sexy if you show them you are. They won't if you show them your a**." To me, it was just an illustration of sloppy, lazy writing to show off Malin Ackerman's body.
Speaking of lazy writing, remember that part in the novel in Vietnam in the bar with The Comedian and Jon? The woman The Comedian impregnated walks up to him and somewhat bashfully (it seems to me, at least) wants to discuss the baby. The Comedian is dismissive and a general jerk to her, but every work he speaks to her illustrates a lot about his character. The way he speaks, the order in which he says what he says are all components of what makes The Comedian such an engrossing character. Remember what happened in the movie? He just kept on repeating, "Get the f*** out, get the f*** out of here!" This also happens in the Keene riot scenes. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Jeffrey Dean Morgan's acting, for the most part, but the interesting and well-structured dialog in those scenes were exchanged for one line constantly repeated to illustrate that he was dismissive, and that's all.
Really, those are the biggest issues that bothered me during the film. The changes to the ending, the gaping plot points that were left out of the film, and the visual similarities to the novel don't matter nearly as much to me as the driving forces behind the characters and their actions do. That is what made the novel so very interesting to me to begin with, and a lot of that is what was left out of the film.
Still, it exists.