the super comic-book movie event exists - and it's a near perfect film

Rating: 8/10 (6 March 2009)

It was called the classic "unfilmable" line, but Alan Moore and David Gibbons' Watchmen was film-able, and oddly enough after over 20 years of directors from Terry Gilliam to Darren Aronofsky to Paul Greengrass taking the possible helm the most commercial choice imaginable, Zack Snyder, made it film-able, and indeed a very, very good movie. How he accomplishes this is fairly straightforward: compress as much as possible of a 12-issue comic book series into a 2 1/2 hour running time, cut off certain pieces of fat (most notably the Black Freighter story which will be on DVD soon anyway as a bonus), and keep the structure and character development and stories 90% of the same. Also, make it about as accessible as possible to a mainstream audience without, possibly, insulting intelligences much.
Indeed this is an incredibly faithful adaptation all things considered - "things" being the fact that after reading the book, still (and I'll sound cliché like many others) the most compelling and daring and magnum-opus-of-all-time works from Moore and in the medium itself, largely of the details save for a reasonably crucial bit in the climax were left intact. Snyder knew to not get too much in the way of the story and characters would be a wise move, and it is in the sense that if a work is as rich and satirical and dark and violent and sometimes warped sometimes lucid and fairly tragic like the Watchmen it's best not to get in its way as it goes along.
For what it's worth, this is the best Watchmen film that we can expect from Zack Snyder, touted as a 'visionary' in the ads based on two good but definitely not great films Dawn of the Dead and 300. Because when he does not let the story well enough alone and puts his "signature" directorial touches on the proceedings, which is mostly slow motion, sometimes in annoying quick bursts that don't add anything of worth to the hyper-realism portrayed, it screams *much*! But, again, this thankfully doesn't happen with the kind of regularity and overbearing force of 300, and he can actually direct action and even dramatic tension really forcefully (this may come into fuller light on a repeat viewing or the director's cut). I'd even go as far as to say he's improved as a filmmaker, mounting such an impressive production with a cast of primarily character actors (matter of fact no real BIG stars), by taking the story where it needs to go both for those familiar and/or in love with the book, and for those looking for some solid entertainment.
I haven't described the plot yet. Here it is in a sentence, if I can try: it's 1985, Richard Nixon is still president (and Vietnam was a victory), America is at a close possible WW3 scenario with Russia, and superheroes are outlawed - and one of them, the Comedian, has been bumped off possibly, as masked psycho/bad-ass Rorscach thinks, by a killer of superheroes, leading to an investigation by him and other drama unfolding with the actual "American Superman" Dr. Manhattan and his sort of love interest Silk Spectre. If that's barely scratching the surface of it all then so be it, since this is even in the framework of the film (and I mean this as a compliment) dense with detail and motivation and dramas of the personal and big-time Earth scale.
Since the storytelling itself, with some of the exceptions I mentioned up before (another being a different twist done from the book for Veidt's plan), is solid and cunning and even featuring a more-than decent selection of songs, what about the cast? It's a mixed bag, frankly, but one that is at the least inoffensive and at best truly inspired, if perhaps as givens. Jackie Earl Haley, Billy Crudup and Jeffrey Dean Morgan go totally into their characters of Rorscah, Dr. Manhattan and the Comedian, making us feel for them just as we did in reading the text. Outside of that, for non-readers of the book, they're still fabulous performances, particularly for Crudup's very subtle touches in inflection (perfectly near-noticeable) and Haley as a tortured soul who sees fit to strike fear into anyone that might cut him down just a single peg (and, unlike Bale's Batman, I really believed Haley doing a super grunty voice for his character).
If nothing else, the back-stories with Manhattan (Crudup) and Rorscach (a hopeful Oscar nom for Haley), and to a slightly lesser extent Comedian (Morgan), are little masterpiece shorts in the midst of the epic running time, and are supported by these actors bringing their characters full of life and sorrow and so-black-it-stings humor. Goode and Wilson are not quite as good, and Akerman maybe just falls totally flat as perhaps the point but still nowhere near as convincing as the three big guns. Even an unreasonably funny scene like Night Owl and Spectre making love isn't totally convincing because of the acting.
In closing... Watchmen, worth seeing? Yes, very much so, especially if you're a fan already, but maybe so as well if going in blind. A masterpiece of a blockbuster? Not really. It's got some problems in a few scenes such as with the BAM BAM kind of style that if I were a crankier old critic I'd use as an example of the music video age destroying movies (it doesn't bother that much, but it still does subjectively). It was, happy to say, worth the tremendous hype. This being said, if you haven't read the book, do yourself a favor and read it first. Then see the movie. It's an excellent movie to talk about. 9.5/10