Dark - but no "Dark Knight"

Rating: Null/10 (13 March 2009)

I don't do graphic novels so I haven't read the 1986/87 "Watchmen" comics/book by British writer Alan Moore, but I'm a huge fan of superhero films so there was no way I was going to miss the movie adaptation, especially as it is directed by the young American Zack Snyder whose "300" I enjoyed so much. It is certainly well worth viewing since, in many respects, "Watchmen" is a true original - a film like no other you've seen before. It is a visual treat, irredeemably dark, outrageously violent, frequently bloody, sometimes sexy, and featuring an eclectic soundtrack.
These are superheros who depart big time from the standard. They may have two identities, which is almost compulsory, but - except for superb fighting skills - they actually lack super powers, with the notable exception of Dr Manhattan who is not so much a superhero as a kind of god, and these are deeply flawed 'heroes', vindictive and violent, who - at worst - rape and murder.
Set in a counter-factual 1985 version of America, it is hard to know which is scarier - the idea of Nixon winning a third term, avoiding Watergate and winning the Vietnam war or the threat of nuclear Armageddon from a US/USSR conflict and difficult to know which is more incredible - that exposing one man to radiation can turn him into a demi-god or that humankind can cope so easily with the nuclear obliteration of 15 million (the largest death toll in any movie in history?). In the end, it didn't quite work for me, mainly because the narrative is so disjointed and the finale insufficiently dramatic. The current benchmark of quality for superhero movies is "The Dark Knight" and "Watchmen" simply does not have the pacing, excitement and virtuoso acting of that movie.