The Watchmen Has a Lot of Promise But Ultimately Can't Live Up to Expectations

Rating: 6/10 (6 March 2009)

Zach Snyder's ambitious rendering of Alan Moore's brilliant graphic novel The Watchmen has a little something for everyone but left me ultimately dissatisfied. That isn't to say the film isn't visually stunning. It is, and considering Zach Snyder made 300, that aspect shouldn't surprise anyone. However, the film is not the socio-political, apocalyptic statement that I was hoping would bear some resemblance to the graphic novel on which it is based. There is a reason that Alan Moore refused to have his name associated with the film.
In a nutshell, the complex, multi layered stories-within-stories plot is about an ex superhero who is murdered and one of his ex partners, a masked inkblot named Rorschach sets out to track his killer by trying to enlist his former superhero friends, who were known as Watchmen. The film is enjoyable to watch for the first 2/3 and then it descends into camp and clichéd dialogue and circumstance. Not unlike other comic book films. From an acting perspective, there are 2 standouts. Jeffrey Dean Morgan who plays the ironic and cruel Comedian and a really well portrayed sociopathic but justice bound Rorschach played by Jackie Earle Haley of Little Children. I found that the Rorschach character was the most short changed out of all of the em and he was my favorite. The cast also features: Malin Ackerman as the sexy but troubled Silk Spectre II (who is the unlucky girlfriend of Dr. Manhattan); Patrick Wilson as the awkward and shut in Night Owl II; Billy Crudup as the very Blue, time and space bending unemotional Dr. Manhattan; (excellent cgi on Doc, right down to being anatomically correct) and Matthew Goode as the smartest person in the world but at what cost, Ozymandias.
Each Watchmen's origin is explored, some more than others. They represent the anti-superhero. Completely distinct from Batman and Spider-Man. They are incredibly flawed and dispense justice as they see fit. Some Watchmen are no different from common vigilantes. The film, like the novel is set in an alternate reality in 1985. Where Richard Nixon is still president, the US wins the Vietnam War, with Dr. Manhattan's help and the threat of nuclear annihilation is close at hand with the Soviet Union. For the most part, this is one of the more faithful books to screen adaptations I have seen, but they made some major tweaks to the climax, which I didn't have too much trouble with but true fanboys will hate it. Some of the more memorable lines from the novel are featured which made me smile, especially from Rorschach. But the other characters appear wooden and their dialogue for the most part is uninteresting. Dr. Manhattan as in the novel for me is the most sympathetic character as he was a noted physicist who is turned into the blue doc, due to a experiment gone horribly wrong, where essentially his molecules are turned inside out, blown apart and then reassembled. But, along with the other Watchmen, I found I didn't have any feeling about any of them and their circumstances, as their stories were thrown together. Again, I can't fault Mr. Snyder or the screenwriter Alex Tse too much. This was a herculean feat that they pulled off, where many visionaries like Darren Aronofsky and Terry Gilliam failed. However, it plays too much to the crowd more interested in violence and sex than good characterization and even good acting. I can't count how many times I was asking the characters how they felt about their circumstance, particularly a scene involving Manhattan and Silk Spectre II on Mars. The only clarity came from Rorschach and Comedian. Kudos to Mr. Haley and Mr. Morgan in that regard.
Overall, fanboys, I predict will enjoy their long awaited masterpiece but will be ultimately disappointed. And for those who are unfamiliar with the novel will like it even less and will undoubtedly get lost in the intricacies of the plot.