Awesome

Rating: 8/10 (26 July 2009)

Comic books had their heyday from the Great Depression through the fifties. Although they are not as popular now as they were at the time, they still have their devoted fans (the tide does appear to be changing with the rising popularity of Japanese animation, or manga). "Watchmen" is considered the greatest graphic novel of all time (and TIME magazine listed it as one of the greatest novels of the 20th century). Having read it (but not being a comic book fan myself), I can say that Alan Moore's graphic novel is very good, but most of its accolades are unwarranted. Many of the themes present have been told before, and seem rather tired (that being said, I read it about a quarter of a century after its initial publication, so maybe time simply hasn't been good to it).
That being said, Zack Snyder's film version is not only excellent, but in my opinion, it's better than the source material. The graphic novel was dense and at times highly confusing, forcing me to go back and revisit past parts of the story. The film version is more streamlined, and less padded, without losing any of the book's impact or intelligence. I don't understand why the audience reaction was so polarized. Of course there are the hard-core fans, who think any film version will be a butchery of their Holy Bible (past attempts at filming hit books have proved them right for the most part). Then there's the writer, Alan Moore, who refused to have his name listed as the author of the book, but he's done that ever since "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" came out (an over-reaction in my book. While "LXG" was no "The Dark Knight," it's entertaining to watch when it's on TV).
Speaking of "The Dark Knight," that's probably the film to compare "Watchmen" to. This is no "Spider-Man." "Watchmen" is a dark, violent and menacing world. The R-rating is warranted (for once). Not only does it contain some gory violence (though not as much as the MPAA would lead you to believe), it contains the first sex scene on film in years.
"Watchmen" takes place in an alternate reality. It's 1985, and Nixon is still the President (Watergate is never addressed). In the past, men and women dressed up in costumes with the requisite gadgets and fought crime, or committed it. But legal action has made crime-fighting superheroes a thing of the past, so all the ex-heroes can do is go about their days like everyone else and reminisce about the past. However, for a group of superheroes who called themselves the "Watchmen," a new threat has surfaced. One of their crew was murdered, and the threat of a "mask killer" puts them all in danger.
The most apparent change is most of the material regarding the first band of "Watchmen" has been eliminated. In my opinion, this was a good move, since that stuff made the story more convoluted than necessary, and never really added anything anyway. Most of the material remains, however, and I swear some of the dialogue has been lifted directly from the novel itself. That's good, because some of the dialogue is brilliant (and not just the catchphrases).
The acting is surprisingly good. Malin Ackerman is solid as Silk Spectre II. She's an ordinary girl with an extraordinary past. Patrick Wilson is a big surprise as Nite Owl II. He's an effective lead, despite having a past of flat performances (he has some bland moments here, too, but overall his low-key portrayal works). Matthew Goode is rather flat as Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, although the script's version of the character didn't come out very well. Jeffrey Dean Morgan is good as the gruff Comedian. He's dark and vicious, but The Comedian was never a well-developed character to begin with, and that hasn't changed here. Jackie Earl Haley is excellent as Rorschach, the dangerous psychopath who took the vigilante part of being a superhero to heart. However, the biggest surprise is Billy Crudup. Save for a few feature film appearances, Crudup has laid low with his career, but his Dr. Manhattan gives him a chance to display his true talent. Of all the Watchmen, Dr. Manhattan is truly the most dynamic. He has the traditional superhero origins (a scientific experiment gone awry), but Moore opted for something far less conventional. Crudup (and Snyder) respect that. Dr. Manhattan has become superhuman, and in so doing, he becomes alienated from humanity. This, and the resulting toll it has on his relationships, is perfectly portrayed by Crudup.
Zack Snyder got the public's attention with his re-envisioning of "Dawn of the Dead," but he REALLY burst onto the scene with his stunning and visually arresting version of "300." Snyder clearly has a sense of visual flair. It suits him well for "Watchmen," but Moore's comic has a more complex story, and to bring a competent version of the novel to the screen, a director has to have a good sense of how to tell a story. Snyder has it, and that's what makes this film so good. There are times where he borders on overuse with the camera tricks, but it's not excessive. But Snyder can tell a story in a way that is clear and concise, but also involving.
"Watchmen" isn't flawless, but it's one of the best superhero movies ever to come out in a while.