A faithful adaptation, which means it misses the point

Rating: 5/10 (10 January 2010)

WATCHMEN is one of the most important texts of the 20th century. As a deconstruction of the concept of the superhero and a sharp analysis of the paranoia of the Cold War, it defines and diagnoses the period in which it was released. It also deftly demonstrates that the comic book can be a serious art form.
Zack Snyder gets the majority of the key moments from the comics yet misses almost all of the themes. For one thing, everything looks too perfect, too clean, too rendered by computers. Dave Gibbons' art was deliberately grungy, fitting the dystopian alternate America of the narrative. Night Owl and Silk Spectre come together because they're lonely old heroes -- they're out of shape and struggle to regain both the fire to fight crime and the timing and physical moves they used to know -- but Snyder makes them in-shape ass kickers capable of taking out thugs in an alleyway or murderers in a prison riot. The violence in the original was brutal but also frequently just suggested but Snyder makes sure we see people get their arms cut off or their teeth break.
The film is poorly cast, with only Jeffrey Dean Morgan grasping the narcissism that fuels the Comedian's desire to be a hero and his regret over his life and Jackie Earl Haley reaching the unsettled morality of Rorschach. Malin Akerman appears to be reciting her lines phonetically, Matthew Goode is a non-entity as Ozymandias, and Carla Gugino mugging underneath some of the worst aging make-up in cinema history. Bily Crudup is lost beneath mediocre CGI that makes his lips look like rubber bands wavering near where his mouth should be.
That said, it moves pretty well and is entertaining enough, I guess, and Morgan's best moments capture exactly what Moore was going for. It's worth watching... but as an adaptation of a comic book miniseries that is a must-read, that's not good enough.