Watching "Watchmen"...

Rating: 9/10 (7 March 2009)

I felt that a near-impossible feat had been achieved: that director Zack "Dawn of the Dead remake/'300'" Snyder had been behind the camera of an adaptation of the "Watchmen" graphic novel series co-created by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, and ran for 12 issues between 1986 and 1987. That Snyder was even able to bring the comic book series to the big screen was an achievement in and of itself, since many have felt that a "Watchmen" movie would be, for lack of a better word, impossible; I'm inclined to agree. So read on.
As a comic book reader, and "Watchmen" fan, "Watchmen" has the distinction of being the only comic book to appear on "Time Magazine's" 100 Best Novels List, and likewise, it's been hailed by comic book fans as a milestone in comic book fanfare, while philosophers, writers, and essayists have taken it upon themselves to dissect this epic tome of graphic literature for their pleasure, education, and amusement - all for our sake. The series is world-renowned for its incredibly and crudely realistic (and sometimes satirical) portrayal of superheroes in the real world - many of the main characters were sexually and emotionally frustrated/confused, while others were psychotic and socio-pathic - how they perceived themselves and each other, how they were perceived by the world at large, and the futility of vigilantism in an out-of-control world, as well as building up a chilling expose of Cold War-era fears and paranoia in a world that lay on the brink of nuclear war.
Does all this translate well into Snyder's film? Yes. But there-in potentially lies the film's greatest flaw: that's all it is, a translation, nothing more. It brings nothing new to the table in terms of characters or story, or the series' deeply engrossing subtext. Don't get me wrong. I liked "Watchmen"; on one hand, the movie is a visual splendor filled with terrific special effects and portrayals of the main characters that are faithful to the series. The dialogue, for the most part, is well-written and equally well-delivered by the actors. And the length (162 min.) didn't bother me the way that it should have. It kept me interested throughout (like the comic book), unlike the problem I had sitting through "The Dark Knight" (2008), which was only about 10 minutes shorter than this film.
On the other hand, as I stated earlier, the movie brings nothing new to the table as a means of trying to draw in new viewers (e.g., people who don't read comic books). It seems as if Snyder and company looked at Moore and Gibbons's graphic novel, put it under a magnifying glass, and just directly translated what was on the page to the screen (specific frames from the comic were replicated almost exactly in the film - right down to the littlest, finest detail - you'll know which ones they are when you see them). Moore has been against the idea of a "Watchmen" film from the get-go (I've been largely skeptical myself since first hearing about an adaptation), and his name didn't appear in the opening credits, just as I had somewhat expected.
Set in an "alternate" 1985 in New York City in which Richard Nixon is about to be elected to a third term, the story gets underway when disgraced former superhero Edward Blake/The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) is thrown out of his apartment window and makes a big red stain on the sidewalk below. Investigating his murder, is the socio-pathic masked vigilante - and my personal favorite Watchman - Walter Kovacs/Rorschach (the perfectly cast Jackie Earle Haley). As the mystery deepens, he begins to suspect a conspiracy to off "masks" (superheroes), which leads him into something even more terrifying, something in which the fate of the world is at stake, and he takes his findings to megalomaniac and former colleague and fellow superhero Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias (Matthew Goode), now the most respected scientific mind on the planet.
Calling upon old allies such as Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson) and Sally Jupiter/Silk Spectre II (Carla Gugino) is out of the question because they're currently involved in their own troublesome issues at the moment, a love triangle, to be specific. Sally begins an affair with Dreiberg because her current lover, the almost god-like Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), is unable to satisfy her either emotionally or sexually. So Rorschach is forced to go it alone most of the time, until circumstances force both Dreiberg and Sally to dawn their costumes one more time to save the world from certain doom.
"Watchmen" is an astounding visual feast; it's a live-action comic book. This is probably the best-looking new feature I've seen this year (in fact, it's the first movie I've seen in the theater this year, period). The special effects, as you would expect, are top-notch, and the makeup and costumes for the actors are first-rate (Rorschach's mask!!!). The problem is with the script. David Hayter ("X2") co-wrote this vehicle, which takes a few nods in the direction of the thematic complexities of the graphic novel by playing up some of the satire and establishing the main characters and their back-stories rather faithfully. In doing so, a number of the smaller sub-plots (the earlier Minutemen and "Tales of the Black Freighter" were engrossing favorites) have been excised, presumably for timing, but the movie's already 2 1/2 hours long; how could a little bit more story hurt? In the larger scheme of things, this might seem like needless nit-picking, so that's all I'll say about that.
"Watchmen" is not a failure in any real sense, but I did expect something more from a comic book film as eagerly anticipated as this one. Rorschach was awesome beyond words, but I wish the filmmakers had been watching these Watchmen just a little closer, but not so much that they wouldn't have the real room they needed to grow off the page and into our imaginations.
9/10