Ok, so every blogger in the known universe is writing about Watchmen this week. Bill, over at The Kind of Face You Hate, has written a very good one, as has Ed Howard at Only the Cinema. You should check them out. In the meantime, here’s my take.
But before I get to it, I need to say up front that I haven’t read the graphic novel upon which it is based. In fact, I’m so out of it that I thought a Watchman was one of those newspapers Jehovah Witnesses peddle at my door. But I did get a lot of mileage out of teasing my son, who holds the original in great reverence, by saying every time I saw the trailer that it looked like an X-men rip-off to me. (Hold those cards and letters, please, I know it’s not an X-men rip-off. Its Justice League roots are written all over it.)
Not having seen it, I brought very few expectations to it, and was therefore able to watch it with an unjaundiced eye. That means I could evaluate it as a movie, not a holy relic. And for me, it was an enjoyable enough 163 minutes of film: there were enough arresting visuals to keep me diverted, the backstory — more interesting than the up-front narrative — was fascinating, and by and large, the characters were likable enough, although the acting wasn’t particularly good. Unlike some, I liked Jeffrey Dean Morgan as the Comedian, the death of whom sets off the proceedings. I thought his cheerful thuggery a refreshing change from troubled superheros who know they are troubled and beat themselves up about it throughout the film. (Dark Knight, I’m talking about you.)
Like most people, I thought Jackie Earle Haley to be the pick of the acting litter as Rorschach; he brought a brooding intensity to the role that shone through the mask, so that when he finally is unmasked it is worth the wait. The other performances range from forgettable to bad, from actors I really like, such as Carla Gugino (Silk Spectre) and Patrick Wilson (Nite Owl). I wanted very badly to enjoy Wilson’s performance, but couldn’t bring myself to do it, especially after that idiotic love scene between him and Malin Ackerman, complete with spurting rocket jets at the end. (I know, I know . . . it is supposed to be dumb, in a hip “look this is dumb” kind of way.)
Director Zack Snyder, who has the cinematic subtlety of a hippopotamus on speed, nevertheless knows how to stage an action scene, and managed to come up with some arresting visuals. The city — a fancifully dark, quasi-New-York metropolis — broods in the background, airships hanging over its dull towers. Nite Owl’s goggle-eyed jet bursts out of the water against a moonlit cityscape, trailing water and fire as it goes. I understand many of the images were lifted straight out of the graphic novel, and are not Snyder’s creation, but hey: they’re new to me.
The costumes are pretty cheesy, even by super-hero standards. Night-owl’s hood has these little horns on it — you know, like a horned owl — and the rubber costume of Silk Spectre II (Ackerman) has — I kid you not — garter belts holding up it’s thigh-high boots. I hope the duds are some sort of wry commentary on the state of the super-hero biz in the alternative history of the film, but I don’t think so.
People who’ve read the original assure me that Snyder has done a good job of replicating the thing, packing in a surprisingly-large percentage into its feature-length running time. That gives the film an episodic structure, and it’s natural: the comic was published in twelve episodes. But unlike some reports, there is a plot, though not a very challenging one. As my friend Bill said in his review, when they get around to solving the mystery of who killed the Comedian, it’s so easy to do that Scooby Doo and his pals would have no problem.
I guess the question is, after all the fault I have found with Watchmen, how is it that I can still say I liked it? I think it has something to do with the world it creates. Snyder has succeeded in creating a convincing, immersive world from the raw materials of sound stage and computer bits. Further, the story — and the alternate world in which it is embedded — is satisfyingly dense and complex, so that it quite simply kept my interest, even through the heavy-handed, comic-book thematics and anti-climactic ending.
And so, though I’m not going to see it again in its theater run, nor will I rush out and buy it on DVD, I can honestly say that I enjoyed it, and recommend it for someone of the right temperament, who’s willing to take the good with the bad, and be swept up in its interesting world. Of course, as always, your mileage may vary.
RSS 2.0
I hope the duds are some sort of wry commentary on the state of the super-hero biz in the alternative history of the film, but I don’t think so.
I actually think they kinda are, at least as Moore and Gibbons originally envisioned them. Less so in the film, possibly (or maybe probably), although I think it’s pretty clear that we’re supposed to think the 1940s incarnation of the heroes look pretty goofy. And they do!
I tried to like Wilson’s performance, too. It didn’t happen. I thought he got better as the film went along, but it still never took hold. He, along with so many others, was miscast.
I saw the movie with three people who hadn’t read the comic, and I found their reaction kind of hard to gauge (other than I know they weren’t over the moon about it), but it seems to me that for the unitiated the movie must have seemed especially crazy. It even seemed that way to me, but, Rick, did you occasionally find yourself wondering “What the hell is this??”
And what did your son think of it? You implied in a comment at my site that he was a bit disappointed.
but, Rick, did you occasionally find yourself wondering “What the hell is this??”
yeah, I did, sometimes, but that didn’t bother me too much … I don’t have a problem with not understanding everything in a film. I just saw Wong Kar Wai’s “Ashes of Time Redux,” and will have to see it a couple of more times before I get it all
Ever since “Angels in America,” Wilson is one of my favorite un-sung actors, and I hate to see him misused. He surely was miscast.
My son liked it, though he wasn’t over the moon about it. He’s 22 years old and plays video games, he’s square in that magic demographic … he liked the over-the-top violence, which I found excessive, better than I did. But he thought that the interpersonal scenes were horribly directed, which is kind of what you said in your review.
163 minutes!
Geeze, young audiences must have buns of steel. Must be from sitting in front of screens playing video games for hours.
But he thought that the interpersonal scenes were horribly directed, which is kind of what you said in your review.
Yeah. Another bad scene like that I didn’t mention was the one where Laurie has just left Dr. Manhattan and come to Dan’s place. Laurie stands there in his foyer spouting all this particularly florid dialogue while Dan just stands about three feet away, staring at her. What, they couldn’t sit down first? I guess because he keeps cutting back to Dr. Manhattan throughout the scene, Snyder figured no one would notice the awkward staging of the dialogue scene, but I did.
I blog outside the known universe, which is why I haven’t seen “Watchmen” yet. I do plan to see it, just a little later on, when the crowds have thinned out a bit.
Till then Rick, I’m just lightly skimming your review and others for now with plans to revisit after I’ve written my own. I want to go in “fresh.”
Marilyn, buns of steel is about right. By the time I was outa’ there, I needed one of those pillows with the hole in it just to drive home.
Bill, I remember that scene. It wasn’t good, all right, but I thought the worst were the ones between Ackerman and the badly-aged Carla Gugino (with all the CGI in evidence you’d think they could do a better job). They were cringe-worthy.
Pat, I’m looking forward to hearing your take.
Hi! Rick,
A another very interesting review…I have been reading several mixed reviews about this film out there in the blogosphere.
I usually don’t like Superhero flicks, but I must admit that I enjoyed watching and purchased the X-men series.
Rick, I noticed that you used the word “graphic” twice…is that just the name connected with the comic The Watchmen? or is there “extreme graphic” violence in the film The Watchmen?
Take care!
Dcd
I believe you’re talking about my use of it in the term “graphic novel” That’s a term used for “comics” that are a cut above regular old comics, that are adult-oriented, and have something of the depth of a novel. Graphic in this case means graphics, i.e., pictures. They are novels told in pictures.
There is graphic violence in the film, although that’s not what I meant.
I went into WATCHMEN with dread.
I knew I was going to hate WATCHMEN.
I hate all films like WATCHMEN.
I am as cynical as Marilyn Ferdinand when it comes to these types of movies. (and I say that positively, Marilyn)
I don’t like Super Heroes or Graphic Novels.
I abhor the kind of violence on display in WATCHMEN.
WATCHMAN is very long and noisy.
The final verdict???
WATCHMEN, which get 4/5 from me is an operatic, stark, beautiful, kinetic and visceral film that is pure cinema. It’s suggestive, philosophical, nihilist, existential, expressionistic. Mr. Haley, as Rick rightly asserts is excellent.
I challenge the nay-sayers to a battle-to-the-death!
Hey, Sam — you liked it better than me, but I have to agree with your list of adjectives “suggestive, philosophical, nihilist, existential, expressionistic” Well said.
But, you know, you don’t have to go to movies you think you’re going to dislike. I probably would have waited until DVD except that my son wanted to go. Father/son bonding, dontcha know.
Yep, Rick, same here. My five kids were the reason I went. But this was that rare instant where I was pleasantly surprised.
Rorschach was an especially well developed as a character, that guy rocked
Rorschach was the best of the bunch, you’re right. Thanks for stopping by!