I don't hear the Comedian telling any jokes. Even Rorschach told one.

Rating: 8/10 (11 March 2009)

A mere twenty one years after the comic book was first published, the screen adaptation of the greatest graphic novel of all time (obviously I've read them all) is here and, with the exception of the entirely fatuous sex scene and questionable soundtrack choices, Watchman rules. The direction and cinematography is amazing; each scene has been expertly crafted and lavished with colours to mirror the panels in the comic book to such a degree that it would be pretty much impossible for any idiot fan boy to complain Alan Moore's original vision has been changed at all. There is only one major change to the story, the climax, which actually makes more sense. Plus, director Zach Synder hasn't slowed down two thirds of the film just to go "Hey, you guys overtly suppressing their homosexual urges through sporadic outbursts of testosterone fuelled violence! Check out this action sequence! You can literally see everything that's happening, just in a slow and incredibly boring way!" as he did for 300. Instead, every scene flows perfectly and the slow-motion is only used when necessary, like for an unprovoked murder. Plus, the cast personify their graphic novel alter-egos meritoriously, particularly Jackie Earle Haley who takes the iconic character of Rorschach and somehow makes him illimitably cooler than he was in the novel.
However, there is a noticeable problem. It lies in the story. Oh gasp. What resonance does a story involving the impending apex of the Cold War and mutually assured destruction for all have in today's society as it did when it was written amidst the end of détente, the Soviet war in Afghanistan, Olympic boycotts, billion dollar Strategic Defense Initiatives, nuclear stockpiling and so on? It doesn't have any. While there are indeed still problems such as nuclear stockpiling, further wars in Afghanistan and communist threats (referring to the metaphorical abortion that is North Korea), there is conversely nothing like the paranoia that gripped people with regard to these issues twenty years ago. Thus, Watchmen is unfortunately caught in a Catch-22 situation. If it had been made in the 1980s, it would've looked like Howard the Duck. Probably. Being made today, it can offer no substantial critique on society and is merely a series of pretty pictures set in a time that the majority of the audience know nothing about. It doesn't ruin the film, it is just frustrating to see that a film with a story as intelligent as this has had its message reduced to the same comic book level as The Dark Knight.
Returning to the good stuff, it is refreshing to see that Zach Synder has not compromised his film in any way with regard to length and violence. At nearly three hours long the running time may alienate a lot of people but is incredibly rewarding for those who do choose to see it as Watchmen does not become boring even once. Not even the aforementioned sex scene is tedious as it is dealt with so badly (including the use of the pervasive 'Hallelujah' which never needs to be heard by anybody ever again) that it makes you glad Synder tried (but failed) to ruin the film with it. Concerning the violence, it isn't the typical comic-book standard. Incarnadine fountains of life force are routinely expelled across the screen, ivory shafts of splintered bone protrude from bodies like colonial flagpoles from an antediluvian age and people get blown up real good. This is accompanied on the whole by an underlying dark humour which goes some way to validating the gratuity. Pleasing.
As a screen adaptation of an 'unfilmable' graphic novel, Watchmen is visually perfect. Every nuance on every panel has been studied and transferred to film. Everything fits except the story, with the Zeitgeist having little relevance today. But, in answer to the immemorial question "Who watches the Watchmen?", I would say "hopefully anyone who doesn't find a two metre long blue penis funny." So nobody.