A critic’s review of ‘Watchmen’
The graphic novel that was said to be impossible to adapt to film has been adapted. Having not read the graphic novel, I was confused as to why many thought it was not possible. Now that my “Watchmen”cherry has been popped, I understand where those cynics were coming from. In short, “Watchmen”is too profound for its own good.
In accordance with Alan Moore’s masterpiece, “Watchmen”is set in a dark alternate vision of 1985. The U.S. and Russia are on the brink of nuclear war and all superheroes, besides those who work for the government, have been forced to retire. While some of the retired heroes hide in shame, others either bask in their fame or continue to work to bring justice to a world they still believe in.
As a movie, “The Dark Knight”thrived on its dark societal message of human corruption, but kept it to a few simple themes. In adapting the novel, “Watchmen”screenwriters David Hayter and Alex Tse did not have the luxury of keeping things simple.
“Watchmen”is too much film for its own good. At nearly three hours long, the story seems to stretch on forever and after two hours, I found myself mentally checking out. That is unfortunate because the film’s epic conclusion is something that deserves the viewer’s attention and respect, even if it drawls out longer than “Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.”
Though the film often gets lost in its own intricacy, the large variety of characters and their development are what keep this movie from disaster.
“Watchmen”opens with the poetic death of Edward Blake, aka The Comedian (Jeffery Dean Morgan, TV’s “Grey’s Anatomy”), a former member of the Watchmen group. Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley, “Semi-Pro”), one of the few masked vigilantes still working, quickly learns of his acquaintance’s death and spreads the word to the other former members, who may also be in danger.
The film then takes the next hour or so diving into the background of the Watchmen and their ideals. Without question, the heart of the movie lies with The Comedian. Morgan creates a vivid character who adapts with the increasingly graphic world. As a supposed hero, he unflinchingly shoots down pregnant women and attempts to rape a crime-fighting partner. No matter how morally devoid he gets, I found myself caring the most for his character and his representation of society. He gives the rest of the Watchmen a reason to fight for a better world.
The rest of the actors create unique and individualistic characters, but rely heavily on their character’s subplots to keep them interesting. While Rorschach adds much-needed humor to the grim film, it is Dr. Manhattan and his teleportation and matter transforming powers that give the film its superhero feeling, though his flailing, glowing penis (or penises when he multiplied) didn’t feel all that necessary to development of the film.
All this said, director Zach Snyder (“300″) did a commendable job creating a unique film-going experience. His imaginative visuals and slow-motion action sequences engage a viewer better Michael Bay’s giant robots any day. Like any other director, though, he has his odd quirks that sometimes add to the experience or feel extremely out of place. For example, his song choice for The Comedian’s death, “Unforgettable”by Nat King Cole, adds a feeling of poetic justice that makes his brutal death a unique experience. On the other hand, his need to add somewhat awkward sex scenes, just for the sake of having sex, adds nothing to the film’s tone. I will admit, however, playing Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah”during a scene where two characters finally have sex for the first time is ingenious.
If the film of adaptation of “Watchmen”teaches us anything, it’s that maybe it is best to leave some of the world’s most praised written work in its original state. But if Hollywood has taught us anything, it is that that will never happen.
Jay Brissenden can be reached at jbrissenden@nevadasagebrush.com.
‘Watchmen’
Release Date: March 6
Director: Zack Snyder
Starring: Malin Akerman, Billy Crudup, Jakie Earle Haley, Jeffery Dean Morgan and Patrick Wilson
Genre: Action, drama, fantasy
Rating: R for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language.
Grade: C+
Related Posts:
Leave A Comment
Latest Comments
- Penny Vallone: Basically it comes down to doing what is right. Wh...
- Karen: Please read this blogspot: http://www.dickgammick...
- Steve: Once again, way to the cover the wolf pack picked ...
- Taj: Did she say she wasn't wearing a condom, jackass? ...
- Joe-VAl: I'm sick of all this Twilight trash. Ive watched ...
- Kitty Kat: hehehehehe.......GOLD!!!!!!! I want in! :-)...






10 Responses to “A critic’s review of ‘Watchmen’”
1. It was the Soviet Union – not Russia. The USSR consisted of Russia and 14 other countries. 10 seconds on Google.
2. “even if it drawls out longer than ‘Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.’” “The Return of the King” was 201 minutes long. “Watchmen” is 163 minutes. 201>163. 30 seconds on IMDB.
3. Gee, thanks for the spoilers about The Comedian. I’m sure the readers will love that.
Report this comment
Wow, Grigory, chill out. It’s not as though any of that was detrimental. Also… if the death of The Comedian is a central plot-point, shown in the trailer, then isn’t that an okay thing to slip into a review? It’s like “revealing” that the Harry Potter movies are about a boy who finds out he’s a wizard.
Report this comment
I wasn’t talking about his death – was referring to Jay letting us all know that he tried to rape Silk Specter and shot the Vietnamese woman. :(
Report this comment
he actually just said that the comedian tried to rape a crime-fighting partner. that could be anyone. but, way to spoil it for the readers of this comment.
jay, “Rorschach adds much-needed humor to the grim film”? rorschach is srs business.
Report this comment
Joe, Silk Spectre was the only female crimefighting partner Comedian had on the team. :-/ Not exactly hard to make the connection. Same goes for “unflinchingly shoots down pregnant women” – there is only one pregnant woman in the whole flick, and Comedian’s action was supposed to be unexpected and shocking. Sure, those aren’t huge and vital plot elements, but then where do you draw the line? Would it be okay if the reviewer wrote about Rorschach’s true identity? Or the identity of the killer? About Silk Specter II’s family? Slippery slope… The goal of a review is to describe a movie, let the reader know what kind of a movie it is – brownie points for deep thoughts and finding hidden meanings. Posting spoilers (and not doing the basic fact-check) is a cheap trick and not something a professional journalist would do. :(
Report this comment
I understand your point about spoilers/fact-checking, but men can also be raped. just saying.
Report this comment
I know. But if The Comedian tried it on, say, Moth Man, MPAA would have a heart attack and give it an NC-17.
Report this comment
OMG SPOILERS MY LIFE IS RUINED. Now I can never ever watch any movie ever.
Good bye.
Report this comment
Was this comic book supposed to be complicated? I read it and came away feeling like I read a trailer trash version of a Shakespeare comedy. The movie wasn’t much better. I don’t get it, why are so many people so hung up on Watchmen?? It’s not hard to understand or read the character. The symbolism and foreshadowing start from page 1, there’s nothing “to get” since it’s all right there. There’s more interpretation as to why this crap is so big in the first place.
Maybe I don’t “get it”, but I’ve had arguments with my friends over this comic. Their alleged understanding of the “deep meaning” behind Watchmen wasn’t anymore than what I already picked up. The storyline was entertaining and the deconstruction of the superhero set during the last part of the Cold War was interesting, but if so many people are in love with this comic, no wonder it must appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Report this comment
Sean,
I liked the book because of its art and because of the million little details hidden in the background. It really is more than meets the eye.
Report this comment