Mesmerising and monotonous in equal measure

Rating: 7/10 (18 March 2009)

Based on the graphic novel of the same name, by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, 'Watchmen' is set in an alternative 1985 and follows a bunch of ex-masked heroes, as they... try to save... the world? Themselves? You see, it really isn't as straight forward as you might think, so if you're looking for a fast and fun popcorn movie, look elsewhere. Watchmen isn't your average super-hero movie. Hell, it isn't even a super-hero movie, full-stop!
Possibly a strange comparison this, but 'Watchmen' reminds me of 'The Golden Compass', a film which I had awaited the release of for years. If you're not aware, it's based on Philip Pullman's first novel in the 'His Dark Materials' series of books, which is a work of literary genius. The books are dark, mysterious and subtle, and the film is... colourful, mainstream and over-the-top. After watching the film, I was overcome with disappointment, and yet, I still enjoyed it, because despite the many flaws with the film, you could still make out a cracking, wonderfully original story underneath it all.
I'd never read the 'Watchmen' graphic novel, and yet I was left with a similar after-taste after watching this film adaptation. I was bored and mesmerised in equal measure; this is a film which is both insanely pretentious and self-indulgent, and yet rich with the extraordinary imagination and originality of the novel. All of the good parts of this film are a direct result of the novel on which it is based (and which, on a positive note, this film has caused me to start reading), and all of the apparent flaws, are down to the director's taste.
So... the director: Zack Synder... you may be familiar with his work on '300', which I found to be quite ridiculous; a fantastic example of style over a substance; and yet some may argue it changed the face of movie-making. Once the opening 20 minutes of '300' had passed, and the feeling of awe and wonder at the visceral and exhilarating action had subsided, I quickly became bored and confused. Does everything really need to be in ultra slow-motion? Even the bits where it's just a bunch of guys walking? (Mind you, I suppose it did bump it up to the length of a normal feature film).
Sadly, his patented style is still abundant and present in 'Watchmen'. And whilst it is perhaps more justifiable to use this method of film-making in a story as complex and epic as this, it actually detracts from the gritty and stark realism the novel was always meant to imply. 'The Golden Compass' made the same mistake. It's ironic that in trying to make a story more cinematic, and whilst being almost completely faithful to the chronology of the story itself, Snyder has removed the very essence of what makes 'Watchmen' so very poignant. The question, "what if super-heroes really existed?" simply never occurred to me whilst watching this, because I was so utterly removed from the alternate-reality Snyder has created. Sticking to Alan Moore's less stylistic vision of America, and more humanistic exploration of the characters, would have engaged the audience far more, and thus forced them to ask the questions the novel clearly evoked.
The soundtrack, despite the presence of some great tunes, is often bemusing. Philip Glass's 'Pruit Igoe' is beautiful and gets me every time I hear it; Simon & Garfunkel's "The Sound of Silence", however, is far too obvious to accompany a funeral scene. Moreover, using Bob Dylan's "Times They Are a Changin'", whilst again a little "on-the-nose" to accompany the opening montage where the audience literally see the 'times-a-changing', is nevertheless an inspired choice; using Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" during an excessively prolonged sex scene really isn't. Speaking of which, both the seemingly endless nature of the sex scene itself, and the choice of music to accompany it, further exemplifies Snyder's unrelenting need to overstate everything.
Don't get me wrong, there are some things Snyder gets right. For one, he doesn't pander to the Hollywood formula, and the 'Watchmen' we get to see on screen is just as unconventional and controversial as the version you can read on the page. Nothing in the Watchmen world, from the characters to the story-arcs is straight-forward; nobody is wholly good nor wholly bad; nothing is black or white; everything, like life, is pretty grey. At times the convoluted plot may leave you feeling a little disorientated, and perhaps this is why Hollywood usually rigidly sticks to the tried and tested formula we're so used to seeing, but Snyder and Warner Brothers should be applauded for having the bravery and tenacity to deliver a movie unlike any other.
Ultimately, it is the originality and complexity which will divide audiences and is what left me with mixed feelings. Technically, everything is close to flawless; the actors portray the wonderfully diverse characters with aplomb, the special effects and production design are simply fantastic, and I found the plot to be both engaging and thought-provoking. But the whole experience falls short of delivering any kind of lasting emotion and it is this lack of connection with most of the characters, that creates a somewhat puerile atmosphere.
Like, 'The Golden Compass', though, I believe that the strength of the source material shines through in the end and, despite its many flaws, 'Watchmen' is too unique and rich with detail to be ignored. Be warned, it's at times violent, subversive and perverse but this is a more courageous attempt at mainstream film-making than pretty much any other, and for that, is completely deserving of your attention.