Not a great film in and of itself but a very good physical reproduction of the book

Rating: Null/10 (9 March 2009)

With something like this it is always worth knowing what the viewer knows of Watchmen in order to contextualise the opinions one gets. For example I would like to know if you own every possible edition of Watchmen and read it once a week and twice in the week you go to the annual Watchmen convention. Conversely did you not know it was based on anything and just went into this screening because you missed the start of Bride Wars by ten minutes and worried you would not be able to follow it. These things matter they don't mean anyone is right and wrong, but it has meaning. For example, for me, I like the comic book. Not enough to get snotty about people not calling it a graphic novel, but I enjoyed it, thought the plot and characters were interesting and thought that it did work well as a comic with the additional text sections providing a lot to the panels.
I found that I quite liked the film then, because it sticks close to the book, and the book is of value and quality. Some things are dropped, some things done differently and some things changed but it doesn't impact much on the film, although I'm sure the message boards will be rammed with people who disagree. The problem with this is that the film itself is not great as a film which is how the majority of people will be coming to it. It sticks so closely to the source material that the characters retain a certain lack of depth that comes with it. Sure, they do everything required within the original material but they also feel a bit limited by it as well and end up a little stiff as a result. In line with this, the film also has a very serious edge that comes over as being a bit ponderous rather than anything else. This is a shame but it does generally come as a result of how fearful the film seems to be of moving too far from the source. Film is a different media from the graphic novel and it should be different in terms of how it does the same things (at least a little).
Limited to the panels in the strip, Synder doesn't really manage to explore the themes and make the most of some aspects of the story and characters. The moral and physiological make-ups of our "heroes" are not really explored or developed so much as they are laid out in a few moments. This is similar to the book of course but what works there doesn't work as well here because this moving, flowing version required a bit more development that we got. Likewise, other than making sure the film looks like an alternative 1980's and that the politicians look like Nixon, Kissinger etc, it doesn't do anything with the setting in terms of satire or commentary. Again this will not bother those looking for a straight reproduction of the film (although if you're that petty then the other changes will) but it does feel like it is all missing and I'm guessing that the casual viewer will wonder what the fuss is all about because there seems to be lots of characters and lots of plot but that it is all lacking depth and frankly takes itself all a bit seriously considering how stiff it is.
Synder's direction is good visually though and for me I enjoyed being told a story I was already familiar with but on a big screen with the characters brought to life. OK he doesn't develop much of it but it still looks good and packs a punch. Occasionally he makes bad visual decisions (the sex scene in particular is awful) but mostly he is faithful and reproduces the material well. The use of music, it must be said, is awful. Not the songs themselves (they are good) but how they are used  when they work it is only because what they are over is working despite of the music (the opening credits are great even if the Dylan song is clunkingly obvious) but mostly they are just dropped onto the film without any impact other than being a recognisable song  many do not fit in terms of tone or period and it is jarring throughout.
Generally it must be said that the performances are solid rather than impressive. Most of them fit the characters well and it suggests this was the aim of the casting process because in this regard it worked. Haley is a good Rorschach. OK his narration is limited in terms of material and delivery but both still work and he was the Rorschach I have in my head. The moral simplicity of his character does make his job easier though in the same way as Morgan's Comedian and Crudup's Manhattan are "easier" to deliver straight. Akerman, Goode, Wilson, Gugino and a few others are not as fortunate though because their characters are more complex but they do not have the freedom to move within their material to show this or explore this. As a result they come off looking a lot stiffer even though they are no better or worse than the others. Again the main fault probably lies with Synder because one gets the impression that his direction of their performances was to point at the animated panels and say "do that".
So as a moving, live-action reproduction of the animated sections of the book it is perfectly fine and I enjoyed it. However as a film it is only OK because it is limited by the lack of development and exploration of themes and characters, seemingly led by the fear of messing with the material to any great extent. Far from the classic many are hailing but yet also not the piece of rubbish that many will say when the backlash begins in earnest.