A deeply human adaptation

Rating: 9/10 (11 March 2009)

As a huge fan of the graphic novel, I have to say that Zack Snyder has done about as good a job with this movie adaptation as was humanly possible. Yes, some elements were left out, but the omissions were wisely chosen. Yes, a few elements were modified. But again, the changes were done with enormous care and intelligence. In at least one case - the ending - I felt the film's (quite minor) modification was arguably superior to Alan Moore's original version. (It eliminates one factor that really has no other point of contact in the story, and substitutes a new irony that I think Moore himself might have appreciated.)
What really won me over, though, was the human element. The largely unknown actors chosen to portray The Comedian, Night Owl, Silk Specter II and Rorschach not only look *uncannily* like the characters in the comic, they do an excellent job of fleshing them out. Carla Gugino deserves special note for her great portrayal of the aging Silk Specter I, and Matt Frewer is absolutely perfect as Moloch. And Billy Crudup handles the vague and disinterested Dr Manhattan with just the right subtlety. All of these actors deliver performances that are appropriately stylized, yet deeply human; they bring these characters to life for me in a way that static images on a page simply cannot.
Largely because of this, I found that the movie quickly won me over. Not only as a worthwhile illumination of the comic book, but as a credible work in its own right. At first, I kept comparing each scene with its comic-book equivalent; but after about twenty minutes, I was swept up by the film and felt almost as though I were watching an entirely new creation.
Visually, Watchmen does stay very close to Gibbons' original illustrations, but without being slavish about it. Scenes are allowed to flow and move cinematically, much more than in previous comic adaptations such as Sin City and Snyder's own 300. This really brings the comic to life and opens it up for the big screen, while leaving Gibbons' strange color palette and peculiar compositions clearly evident.
Reading previous reviews, I sense disappointment from those who were seeking a slam-bang "superhero" movie, akin to Dark Knight or Spider-Man. Of course, nothing could possibly have been further from Alan Moore's darkly cynical vision. Watchmen isn't about the action itself, but the motives behind it - something largely taken for granted by superhero comics. When these 'heroes' go into action, we're meant to not just feel their exhilaration, but also to question the brooding subconscious desires that drive it. (Not to mention the urges that fuel our own vicarious enjoyment.) What if 'The Dark Knight' *wasn't* pure in spirit, but was tainted by the same perverse passions that we see in ourselves? Unlike the Wachowski Brothers' superficial interpretation of "V for Vendetta," Snyder's Watchmen deserves credit for ducking none of Moore's toughest, most unsettling questions.
The original remains the original, of course. Everyone should read Moore and Gibbons' masterpiece. But while Snyder's Watchmen may shine largely with borrowed brilliance, it does shine very brightly indeed.