Film Specs

  • Certificate:
    18
  • Running Time:
    163 minutes
  • Released:
    2009
  • Country:
    United States of America
  • Director:
    Zack Snyder
  • Starring:
    Malin Akerman
    Billy Crudup
    Matthew Goode
    Carla Gugino
    Jackie Earle Haley
    Jeffrey Dean Morgan
    Patrick Wilson
  • Genre(s):
    Action
    Crime
    Drama
    Fantasy
    Mystery
    Thriller

Watchmen

05-03-2009 12:00 | 6961 views  |  Dave Foster  |  Show Backlinks

If you’re not familiar with the source material then approaching a film like Watchmen can be a daunting prospect for both critics and film buffs alike. In both cases you have to question whether or not you should read the source first and how that might affect your opinion, which in turn affects how you can discuss it with the many fans it already has. I had this dilemma with Watchmen, a name which until a few years ago I had never even heard of and consequently up until last week I had certainly never read. The sumptuous visuals and deft choice of soundtrack and dialogue found in the trailers for Watchmen had sufficiently whetted my appetite for the film, so prior to watching Zack Snyder’s adaptation I sped through Alan Moore’s original work so as to apprise myself fully of the material. I feel it’s worth informing you, the readers of this, as while I cannot be classed as a fan I am familiar with the source and can make comparisons where necessary. While it’s not essential reading for those looking to enjoy the film, the graphic novel does, as I will explain, help flesh things out and in my case it certainly changed my expectations from Watchmen being a superhero movie to more of a murder mystery with superhero leanings.


In an alternate 1985 United States, Nixon is still in the White House, superheroes are part of the fabric of everyday society, and the Doomsday Clock--which charts the USA's tension with the Soviet Union--moves closer to midnight...

When one of his former colleagues (known as The Comedian) is murdered, the outlawed but no less determined masked vigilante Rorschach sets out to uncover a plot to kill and discredit all past and present superheroes. As he reconnects with his former crime-fighting legion--a disbanded group of retired superheroes, only one of whom has true powers--Rorschach glimpses a wide-ranging and disturbing conspiracy with links to their shared past and catastrophic consequences for the future.



Straight off I’ll say that Watchmen is a slick, visually exciting film that elaborates on the action and spectacle but compromises a little on the character development. The opening scene plays out the murder of The Comedian in detail, extending it to a choreographed fight between two exceptionally strong individuals which culminates in some brutal yet often beautifully composed moments. Some are direct from the panels of the graphic novel, others are entirely new to the film because said murder is never actually played out in the source. We merely see the aftermath and the final moment of The Comedian’s life, which in turn sets the events of the story in motion. This example of the action being extended can be found elsewhere in the film, though at all times I have to give credit to Snyder for choosing the moments wisely and more importantly, staging them very effectively. After all, why have them if you aren’t going to do them right? Some of the editing is a little jumpy, but the use of slow motion and close-ups are excellent while the violence is never so visceral as to be gruelling, nor toned down to the point of it being unbelievable. Getting the look and feel ‘just right’ is something that is done well throughout, with the set design, costumes and overall look creating a cohesive world that comes to life effectively on the screen. The all-important special effects within the film are also exceptional, utterly seamless and often breathtaking. In fact, the most glaring effects work in the entire film is the prosthetic nose on Richard Nixon, which I suspect is probably deliberate and something of a gag.

Even the opening credits sequence comes over as a master class in design and execution, beautifully composed and very striking with its moments captured in time motif surely a treat for fans of the novel, featuring a wealth of little nods to some of the finer details that couldn’t be worked in elsewhere, or were simply just there in the background of the graphic novel in the first place. It’s a fine opening montage that sets the tone, and it is one that is maintained throughout.

Moving beyond the more technical aspects though, where Watchmen the film differs considerably to Watchmen the graphic novel is in the portrayal and exploration of these vigilante masked figures as simple human beings. In both the novel and the film we meet them through Rorschach’s investigation and find them dealing with their fall from grace in the public eye and newfound work-a-day lives. The graphic novel achieves much of what it does in this area through simple repetition, chipping away at the characters as we follow their actions, get caught up in their thought processes and witness their origin stories. In the film it is this repetition that is understandably lost, cut for time, or I should say, compressed, to be more accurate. A section of the novel that might cover nearly an entire chapter is distilled into its rawest form for the screen, maintaining the necessary elements that keep the viewer informed and afloat of the main plot progression, but not necessarily seeing these figures worn down as we do in the graphic novel. Couple this with the embellishment found in the action sequences and the Watchmen in the film appear far more as superheroes than they ever do in the graphic novel. While it may not please the hardcore fan base, for this viewer (and I think for obvious reasons) it makes for a far more entertaining film and one that manages to balance the action, investigation elements and storytelling with more success than a straight adaptation might have.


Some of this compression does result in a few glaring changes that for the most part will only be noticeable to those who have read the source material. These are changes that, while not affecting the outcome of a particular plot strand, do sacrifice some smaller details that for example make Jon Osterman briefly look somewhat idiotic (as opposed to stupid in love as he is in the novel) for bringing the accident upon himself that leads to him becoming Dr. Manhattan. This example however does not adversely affect the film’s flow, it all appears natural and ‘uncompressed’ to the uninitiated. An example where this is not the case would be Ozymandias just blurting out his origin story without so much as a prompt, lacking all of the grace it should have for such an important character. One final example is Rorschach in prison-ordered therapy, a hardened gruff character he plays with the psychiatrist at first but then spills his guts (and his origin story) just a little too quickly. The latter is actually one of the best examples of compression within the film, as the graphic novel dedicates an entire chapter to this whereas the film covers it in what is probably less than 15 minutes. In both cases however it remains true that the essential points to these scenes are achieved, somewhat swiftly maybe, but they are achieved and while the abruptness may catch some viewers off guard and pull them out of the illusion the momentary lapse is always fleeting as the story and imagery that is found in the sequences that follow always manage to pull you back in.

Even with their compressed origin stories and less time dedicated to their nuances the leading characters all remain compelling, and I think importantly just like the novel there is a certain ambiguity to the extent of their ‘powers’ (or lack thereof). Both a comparison to the novel and a worthy point for those not familiar with the material is how the character of Laurie feels considerably different, less bitter about her past as a masked vigilante, only once or twice directly saying how she was forced unwillingly into the life by her mother, and seemingly far more gung-ho about slipping back into her latex costume and resuming her duties. Indeed, while much is left out in the transition to the screen, I found her character and the relationship that blossoms between her and Daniel far more interesting and affecting in the film. Rorschach may have the darkly cool, funny monologues and flippant dialogue, but it is the built up sexual frustration shared between Daniel (Patrick Wilson) and Laurie (Malin Akerman) and the way that is brought to life through looks and motions on the screen that will get the bulk of the laughs from most audiences. The relationship that has obviously been there for quite some time but comes to fruition on the screen is one of the highlights in the film, boasting a somewhat innocent charm that makes their scenes together a particular joy whereas in the novel I have to say I found them to be much less engaging. It probably also helps a little that Daniel’s costume has been toned down in the film, looking less like a kid’s school project and more like a caped crusader (think along the lines of the changes made to the costumes for the X-Men films).


Talking of caped crusaders, the face and more importantly the voice behind Rorschach’s ever-changing mask is probably one of the most adept casting choices I’ve seen in a long time. Jackie Earle Haley seems to be channelling either Christian Bale as the dark knight himself or screenwriter David Hayter in his role as Solid Snake in the Metal Gear Solid video game series (more specifically the fourth game and its ageing version of the character) with a gravelly deep tone that suits his inner monologues perfectly. While he may not break as many bones in the film version his character is every bit the cynical and quite sadistic vigilante he is in the novel, and it is a few later scenes with him that are no doubt part of the reason Watchmen has received an 18 certificate (though I can think of at least a couple of other more likely reasons given the BBFC’s reaction to sex and sexual violence in films). Touching on some of the other characters briefly, Jeffrey Dean Morgan is excellent as The Comedian, a character you mainly see through flashbacks and therefore almost always exaggerated to a certain extent; he is the character that gets the ball rolling and is a potent figure whenever he is on screen. Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan is given the unenviable task of playing a character who is not only in full make-up all of the time, but has no eyes (not in the regular sense anyway) and speaks in a largely monotone fashion. He plays it well enough that when the character does have a revelation or a strong reaction there is enough range there. In short he meets the expectations of the character seen on the page, a somewhat detached lonely existence that is only anchored by those around him.

Attempting to wrap things up, I need to discuss the ending, but first of all I will say there is one potentially damaging moment about half-way through the film which could give the whole thing away to those unfamiliar with the source and therefore ruin some of the mystery. It’s a scene that is perfectly staged in the novel and raises absolutely no suspicion, but in the film it is quite different and very transparent. Moving on though, the ending is hard to discuss without spoilers, but not impossible. It is by far the biggest change from novel to film, but like all of the other changes, the outcome is the same. For my money (and again I’ll refer the fans back to the point that I’ve only read the source novel once) the changes are mostly for the better, with the ‘threat’ used in the novel somewhat unbelievable both in conception and reaction. I will concede that much like the Cold War mentality the novel and film is steeped in, the era in which everything takes place also makes the reaction in the novel a little easier to comprehend, but for a modern audience I feel the changes made for the film result in a much more plausible finale. That it ties in nicely with the Cold War nuclear threat that prevails throughout also helps. Looking beyond the final set-piece however the closing curtain as it were is identical to the novel, so like Dr. Manhattan would say, nothing ever ends.


Overall

Revelling in the spectacle, be it through special effects or drenching the scene in atmosphere Watchmen is constantly thrilling, combining detailed set and costume design, superlative special effects and of course some wonderful dialogue that is for the most part lifted straight from the pages of the graphic novel. Snyder combines all of this with excellent casting and an inspired soundtrack that drifts between song choices every bit as iconic as the visuals and an original score that is subtle but effective. There are lapses in the substantial 2hour 43minute running time, due both to some changes made to the source material and the often strict adherence to said material, but the film always bounces back and will no doubt reward multiple viewings due to the level of detail found throughout. It’s suitability to a wide audience is being questioned by some, though I think the biggest problem has nothing to do with not understanding the plot (it’s all rather simple at the end of the day) but in the expectations viewers have of more traditional comic book movies, something this is not.

DVD Times Ratings

  • Overall: 
    9
    9 out of 10

Reader Ratings

  • Overall: 
    8.1

Comments

#1 Posted: 05-03-2009 15:58
badblokebob
The Duck
Posts: 726

Report this post
It's interesting how this seems to have split critics (both fan and non-fan ones) right down the middle. But reviews like this -- plus those of Empire, Jonathan Ross and Roger Ebert -- have kept me confident I'll enjoy it.

From what I've heard (and this is speaking as a fan), the changed ending seems like a very wise idea, especially in a film that has to condense things so much. The book's ending is a bit out there anyway, and requires hints scattered throughout the whole book to even vaguelly make sense, whereas the film's conclusion appears more straightforward while retaining the same 'moral' message/point. (And despite what some would have us believe, being straightforward isn't always a bad thing!)

Counting down the hours 'til the first screening here -- 21 to go! (Such a shame we don't get a midnight one, considering the Doomsday Clock and the significance of midnight to that.)
Quote this post
#2 Posted: 06-03-2009 18:52
MollyRingwald
Member
Posts: 52

Report this post
Having just seen the film today and not read the source novel I have to say I thought that the film suffers, as many adapatations from comic strips/graphic novels do, from having to replicate faithfully visual aspects of the source material. This can lead, for a general viewer with no knowledge of the source book, to some awkward-seeming junctures which don't sit comfortably with the film narrative but would, however, make sense to a fan of the book. I also found the gratuitous revelling in graphic gore and sexual violence disturbing.

Quite a few people in the audience left before the end, whether in boredom or disgust I couldn't tell.
Quote this post
#3 Posted: 06-03-2009 19:08
phaideaux2000
Spel chequer
Posts: 332

Report this post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MollyRingwald:
Quite a few people in the audience left before the end, whether in boredom or disgust I couldn't tell.


They were probably expecting a Spiderman-type romp.

I was very pleased with the movie - about 90% of the book made it there, and what didn't was understandable given the differences in story-telling media.

Quote this post
#4 Posted: 06-03-2009 20:23
Noel M
Contributor
Posts: 485

Report this post
I think the original graphic novel is overrated and rather dated - Moore has subsequently written much better stuff than this, so I wasn't expecting a great deal from the film adaptation. Didn't envy Zack Synder having to keep all the books fans happy either, but he did an outstanding job, highlighting the qualities of the book while playing down its weaknesses. You're right Dave - every tweak was for the betterment of the work. I thought this was brilliant.
Quote this post
#5 Posted: 06-03-2009 21:21
Eamonn McCusker
Contributor
Posts: 228

Report this post
Quote:
You're right Dave - every tweak was for the betterment of the work


Except for the ending, Noel. Really need to use spoilers on this one...

The following text contains spoilers. Click and drag over this box to view.
The reason it worked in the book wasn't the giant squid thing that was so obvious but that Veidt had used the images, sounds and descriptions of an alien world (and, OK, the massively enlarged brain of a dead psychic...which sounds bad when written like that) to terrify everyone into thinking that they ought to settle their differences for the sake of planning for more of this thing coming from wherever it came from. The film didn't do so well with its ending. Wouldn't the Russians just have laughed heartily that America's secret weapon, Dr Manhattan, had backfired on them? And then, in their weakest moment, launched a couple of thousand missiles just to finish them off? Maybe...maybe not.


Otherwise, very impressed. Agree with phaideaux2000 that people were probably expecting more from Watchmen than what it is in terms of action. It's big fight scenes are all wrapped up long before the end of the film and, like the book, it talks its way to a close. No bad thing but possibly out of step of other action blockbusters. Although the fighting is great. Properly violent.

And that sight of the Comedian on the grassy knoll was the point at which I thought Snyder was going straight to those who have read the book. Not a point that he stretched, mind you, but enough to have a little fun with the character.
Quote this post
#6 Posted: 06-03-2009 22:47
phaideaux2000
Spel chequer
Posts: 332

Report this post

Eamon -

The following text contains spoilers. Click and drag over this box to view.
I don't think the USSR could have done as you suggested as weren't they devastated the way NY was? I could be wrong but I thought major cities worldwide got hit.

Quote this post
#7 Posted: 07-03-2009 22:06
nicko1
Member
Posts: 2

Report this post
I saw this on opening night and quite enjoyed it, not sure who it is aimed at, too long & talky for the gore hounds and to violent for kids, I have not read the source material so do not know if the differences were good or not, but agree with the review that the romance between Daniel & Laurie was the most believeable part of the film, I liked Daniel, a geeky guy who can dress up and beat up bad guys - every nerds dream
Quote this post
#8 Posted: 07-03-2009 22:21
Blake
Member
Posts: 74

Report this post
After listening to Kermode give this a bit of a savaging I was in two minds whether to see it. This review, and reading that Ross and Empire have been kinder to it, has encouraged me to check it out. The source material is remarkable, rightly lauded as one of the most important comic books of all time ( hell, I`m pretty well read and I`m quite happy to lump it in amongst the greatest books of all time period ), and I`m always very wary when such great work is turned into film.
Quote this post
#9 Posted: 07-03-2009 22:30
Eamonn McCusker
Contributor
Posts: 228

Report this post
Don't know phaideaux2000...

The following text contains spoilers. Click and drag over this box to view.
wasn't it just in New York? There were Russian-language signs in the rebuilding phase after the disaster but I assumed that was as a result of the spirit of friendship and a new co-operation between the two countries. Basically, standing down from arms to such an extent that Russian industries were allowed to operate amongst American corporations.


Mind you, I could be wrong.
Quote this post
#10 Posted: 07-03-2009 22:34
badblokebob
The Duck
Posts: 726

Report this post
Eamonn,

The following text contains spoilers. Click and drag over this box to view.
On the screens of the S.Q.U.I.D. machine as the explosions are set off you can see graphics of various cities being destroyed. I believe the news reports also refer to multiple incidents around the world.

Can't remember all the cities that were hit, but London was definitely among them, and I think Paris (plus New York and Moscow, of course).
Quote this post
#11 Posted: 07-03-2009 23:20
dagada
Evil Journo
Posts: 57

Report this post
You're right.

The following text contains spoilers. Click and drag over this box to view.
Just before we cut to the NY detonation there's a pan along a number of screens showing a detonation, each in a major city across the world. NY looks to be the last to explode.
Quote this post
#12 Posted: 08-03-2009 12:06
Porkchop
Member
Posts: 68

Report this post
I'm torn about this- on one hand, I really want to see one of the essential comics of my youth on screen, on the other, I have absolutely no respect for any of the previous work of this director, who seems incredibly immature, and in possession of all or most of the worst gimmicky techniques available in current cinema- that dreadful bullet time/sudden slow motion thing, plus an over-reliance upon CGI. And the comic fan thinks: how can that guy be Ozymandias? I never pictured Rorschach's voice sounding like that! Why does Dr. Manhattan look so naff?
But, of course, I'm just going to have to see it.
Quote this post
#13 Posted: 10-03-2009 19:10
dbedgood
Movie Fan
Posts: 9

Report this post
I have yet to read the source material but I watched this on Saturday and agree wholeheartedly with the review. As mentioned in the review, it does have a few moments where it starts to drag but it soon bounces back.

The following text contains spoilers. Click and drag over this box to view.
The scene where Rorscharch batters the guy in the prison canteen and then turns around and says "You don't understand, I am not in here with you, YOU ARE IN HERE WITH ME" was absolute class and epitomises his character to a tea.



I can't wait to watch the extended cut on Blu-ray.
------

"Life is just a ride" - Bill Hicks

Quote this post
#14 Posted: 10-03-2009 20:36
Eamonn McCusker
Contributor
Posts: 228

Report this post
Thanks for clearing all that up guys/girls. Missed what was being shown on the television screens...so it does make more sense now!
Quote this post
#15 Posted: 18-03-2009 00:57
ShawnDuHast
Grave Wisdom
Posts: 376

Report this post
I liked it overall and it's not too complicated at all.

It was also not silly - a problem I have with a lot of superhero films.

An adult film aimed at adults for once as opposed to an adult film but aimed at the PG-13 crowd - What I call "The Curse of Spiderman" effect which has produced PG-13 versions of AvP?? & Die Hard?? amongst others my brain will turn to mush if I try to remember them (TDK exempted of course!)

I really liked the manace of Rorschach and the sleazyness of The Comedian

and the best sign of all is when a 2 3/4 hr movie doesn't actually feel as long as that.

My only slight misgiving with the film was that in the aftermath of....

The following text contains spoilers. Click and drag over this box to view.
the nuclear explosions I was expecting to see lots of carnage and dead battered bodies as opposed to just a big hole?


First good film of 2009 lets hope it picks up now!

Let The Right One In and Dead Snow I hope are just the starters...for T4+T2+ST

Well you've got to have some variety in life haven't you ;-)
------

Metal Damage, Brain Damage...Are you listening Bronze? I am the Nightrider. I'm a Fuel Injected Suicide Machine......

Quote this post
#16 Posted: 19-03-2009 12:17
RamblinSydRumpo
Member
Posts: 4

Report this post
I would love to know how changing the origin story for Rorschach and altering the watch was "for the betterment of the work".
Quote this post
#17 Posted: 20-03-2009 11:54
Noel M
Contributor
Posts: 485

Report this post
Quote:
I would love to know how changing the origin story for Rorschach and altering the watch was "for the betterment of the work".


I didn't notice any changes in these areas that had a significant impact on the purpose and treatment of the film. In my book, anything that played down the pulp superhero origins and the dated Cold War rhetoric and imagery was to the benefit of the story, but then that's just my opinion, I don't expect everyone to feel the same way.

Just goes to show what a tightrope Zack Snyder had to walk, inevitably going to be criticised by some for sticking too closely to the original, and by others for not copying it frame-by-frame.
Quote this post