Movie Review: WATCHMEN
Posted by red pill junkie at 15:11, 07 Mar 2009So finally, after all these months of waiting, I went to see Watchmen last night.
In short: I liked it.
Now for the long explanation...
Visually, the movie is almost flawless, and as near to the original graphic novel as you'd possibly could get. All the characters are gorgeously portrayed and amazing tridimensional depictions of what you see in Dave Gibbon's drawings—which is not surprising, considering Gibbons was very close to the production of the movie, and he was more than satisfied with what the art direction accomplished—even Dr. Manhattan is accurately rendered, blue penis & all ;-)
"So what?" the hardcore fan asks, "Alan Moore didn't want anything to do with this movie"; and althought this is true, let's be honest here: Did that prevent you from watching—& eventually buying—The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell & V for Vendetta?
Watchmen has often been called the Citizen Kane of comics; so it's only natural that some people would equally expect a Citizen Kane of a movie when brought to the big screen. Those people I'm afraid, would be then greatly disappointed; for although Watchmen is not only good, but I would go so ar as to call it a damn good movie, it definitely falls short from being the greatest Superhero movie I ever saw.
To make a B+ movie out of an A+ book can be the product of many things: poor directorial vision, lack of budget, mediocre acting, etc. None of which in all honesty can be found in this movie adaptation; the beginning of the movie was brilliant & efficient in establishing that we're gonna enter a world where some people are willing to put on a costume to beat the crap out of criminals—for a very number of reasons, as it turns out— yes, some characters & elements like the incredible story-within a story 'Tales of the Black Freighter' (which BTW will appear in the extended DVD & Blu-ray release) were sadly omitted or not explored sufficiently, but that can obviosuly be explained due to time restrictions —we'll get back to that later.
The movie is 163 minute long, and the director's cut will have 28 extra minutes, and even THAT wouldn't be enough to do justice to all the original content! A smart director & screenwriter know that some hard decisions are needed, and that not all the fans will be pleased—there probably are some Tolkienites out there who still keep a deep grudge against Peter Jackson for the sacrilege of omitting Tom Bombadil in LOTR—; and even though there was a BIG change in the ending of Watchmen, I have to say that IMO it makes sense and it does work in helping to preserves the essence of the novel.
But after all is said and done, we're still left with the stark realization that some awesome books will never make equally awesome movies, no matter how much good effort and money you throw into the production (DaVinci Code, anyone?)
And so we return to the issue of TIME. Normally you would need at least a week to read a novel the size of Watchmen, and that I think is a very good thing, because it let's you savor every aspect of the world you're entering; it lets you discover things at your own pace; it helps you get fully acquainted with the characters & their intentions—and with characters as complex & lawed as the ones portrayed on Watchmen, that is of the essence—and when you eventually have a pause and close the book, that necessary interlude lets your mind sink in all that it has been exposed to, so all the ideas presented in the book have a process of fermentation inside your head.
Fermentation may be then the answer to this dilemma. Watchmen is like an incredible Pinot Noir with a rich raspberry fagrance, and subtle oaky overtones that linger in your tongue long after you swallow, and a wine like that desserves to be enjoyed only with a fine cheese and a nice meal of red meat, NOT just to quench your thirst; whereas Watchmen—the movie is more akin to a fresh wine that is more adequate for a casual gathering, but it is DEFINITELY no grape juice!
So go see the movie* and have a great time. And if you're a hardcore fan of the novel, go see the movie* in disguise and don't tell any of your obsessed purist friends :-P
And for Pete's sake, if you haven't done so already, read the original novel!! (Amazon US & UK
(*): That is, if you are 18 or older; otherwise... tough luck, buddy!
Bookmark/Search this post with:
- red pill junkie's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
3 September 2004
26 min 30 sec
Saw it yesterday afternoon, being the admitted Watchmen fanboy that I am - and I felt exactly the same way.
The film looked and felt like pages of the graphic novel brought to life and they were remarkably true to most of the original material - but afterwards, I walked out and said... They never should've made it into a film.
Might've worked as a 12 part mini-series on HBO, but even a nearly three hour film can't begin to grasp the complexities of Watchmen. Would've been nice to see a 2 or 3 part LOTR version of Watchmen, but no studio would take that kind of gamble.
Nicely reviewed!
Turner
12 April 2007
50 min 26 sec
I could see that working too, you know!
It's funny how Peter Jackson proved to Hollywood that extended DVD versions of the same movie are profitable, and yet no one has given thought to the idea of releasing alternative exended versions of a movie directly to the theaters! I went to see Dark Night first on a conventional theater, then I went to see it on an IMAX screen, which for the studio is a very handsome proposition. Ditto for 3D movies.
So why couldn't they release the conventional 2-hour movie, and in some theaters project a 3-1/2 or 4-hour version? There are VIP theater rooms wih very comfortable reclining chairs which could help you endure such a physical ordeal; or they could resort to the old-school trick of the Intermission— I'm old enough to remember there used to be a time when movies had a 5-minute intermission when the projecionist would change the reel/smoke a cigarette/take a dump. A 5-minute intermission in a 4-hour movie might work.
The point is: Hollywwod should explore further the idea of making custom editions of the same movie to different niche markets.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
1 May 2004
4 min 25 sec
I would be willing to hit the theater a few weeks in a row if the product was good.
As for Watchmen, a very commendable effort. They clearly worked at keeping key elements in the film. My only question is the Nixon makeup, can we not do better with today's technologies? Lots of great acting, especially Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. A good movie. I definitely recommend.
12 April 2007
50 min 26 sec
Movie matinees were great and sorely missed; alas, now that anyone can have their own pivate cinema they won't be returning anytime soon.
Yeah, I agree that Nixon's make up was too exaggerated & distorted :)
The best character in the novel —Rorschach—remains the best character in the movie. The Comedian is the second best character; both of them are deeply flawed and yet the novel & the movie manage to create in the audience a tiny amount of empathy towards them—which of courses makes you question your own sense of morality and concepts of 'right' & 'wrong', which of course was the whole purpose of the book ;-)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
19 August 2004
1 week 2 days
My biggest fear was that it wouldn't transfer well to the big screen because the original was written as a series. That being said, seeing everything in live action still has to be awesome. Mostly I was concerned about the story losing it's flavor, but it sounds like it did not. It also sounds like the end result isn't on par with other great superhero/comicbook type movies.
Maybe that's because we usually want some clear cut hero that rocks our socks and in this movie it's not clear cut? And there isn't a resolved "happy ending"? I got to see it dang it! Hopefully tonight!
12 April 2007
50 min 26 sec
IMHO if you're a big fan of the original novel, you'd still appreciate the movie as another medium in which to explore this fantastic Universe that Moore and Gibbons invented :)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
7 March 2009
6 days 14 hours
The graphic novel was a nuanced, detailed story, but I think the film is mediocre at best, because to me it stunk of social engineering & propaganda.
SPOILERS!
Think about it: the message we're left with is that the real danger isn't the conspiratorial mass slaughter of innocents, no!--the real danger is the public learning the TRUTH about the conspiracy! What an interesting point to make to the American public at this point in time!!
The detonation that killed the millions of citizens seemed to be taken relatively lightly in the context of the movie--more emphasis was given to all the "peace & happiness" that supposedly sprung out across the globe as a direct result of the detonation. The ends justified the means, according to the film! The possible discovery of Rorshach's journal is given more emphasized tension & drama than the detonation--it's clear that "the truth" is being treated as the major threat.
The graphic novel included the Black Freighter comic, which depicted a man who, in the course of trying to save humanity from evil, became evil himself by needlessly killing people. This added a cautionary theme to balance against Ozymandias's mass-slaughter conspiracy.
But Snyder's film leaves these nuances out and just seems to glorify big fights, big wars, big killings. It doesn't even seem to be questioned that the mass killing was a good idea!--the audience is just supposed to be afraid of Rohrshach's journal being read, IMO. Think about the emphasis given to, say, the fact that Blake was Laurie's dad--such a big, dramatic moment! To me, the detonation seemed to pass by as just another action moment...really cool to hear & look at, but we didn't get ANY sympathy for the people being killed! They should have had some people holding hands, SOMETHING to humanize it, rather than minimize it!
Now think about relatively recent events, and the grim horizon we're being shown, and tell me that a film like _Watchmen_ isn't timely propaganda meant as an apology for despicable acts of mass violence in the name of "political necessity." Who was this film made for, people like Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Perle & Wolfowitz?! For the social engineers researching ruthless forms of population control? I never saw Snyder's _300_ film because it had sounded like historically-inaccurate, war-glorifying propaganda. My mind returns to that fact the more I think about his version of _Watchmen_.
Are they trying to leave the public with the idea that, "Hey, if horrible things start happening to the population, it's really just for your own good"?! If you wanna make omelets, you gotta break a few eggs..? That's the sort of taste that the film left me with, and I don't like it.
I find it disturbing that the American public is being given this sort of message at this particular time.
Anyone feel I'm off track here?
12 April 2007
50 min 26 sec
Hey The End, thanks for sharing... finally? ;-)
Think about it: the message we're left with is that the real danger isn't the conspiratorial mass slaughter of innocents, no!--the real danger is the public learning the TRUTH about the conspiracy! What an interesting point to make to the American public at this point in time!!
Well, if you think about it, I think that some—if not all—of the worst crimes perpetrated on humankind were originally considered as the least of two evils. There's always some rationalization on the mind of the perpetrator that in the end his course of action is the right think to do. And that is something to think about in this and all ages!
The detonation that killed the millions of citizens seemed to be taken relatively lightly in the context of the movie--more emphasis was given to all the "peace & happiness" that supposedly sprung out across the globe as a direct result of the detonation. The ends justified the means, according to the film! The possible discovery of Rorshach's journal is given more emphasized tension & drama than the detonation--it's clear that "the truth" is being treated as the major threat.
That to me is what I loved about the graphic novel! Emotionally I end up agreeing with Rorschach at the end—even though I begin by being against his binary (black or white) way of seeing the world. But then he remains the sole defender of the truth against all who rationalize it is best to keep a lie; and even my cold logic side agrees with the notion of keeping the lie when exposed to the options: knowing the truth at the risk of nuclear armageddon and the extinction of all life on the planet. The novel and the movie put me at odds with myself!! How cool is that??
The graphic novel included the Black Freighter comic, which depicted a man who, in the course of trying to save humanity from evil, became evil himself by needlessly killing people. This added a cautionary theme to balance against Ozymandias's mass-slaughter conspiracy.
Indeed it was a shame not to have included the Black Freighter interlude, which serves as you rightly state as an internal commentary of the events happening in the Watchmen world. The Freighter tale is what really brings in the horror of what Ozymandias does.
But Snyder's film leaves these nuances out and just seems to glorify big fights, big wars, big killings. It doesn't even seem to be questioned that the mass killing was a good idea!--the audience is just supposed to be afraid of Rohrshach's journal being read, IMO. Think about the emphasis given to, say, the fact that Blake was Laurie's dad--such a big, dramatic moment! To me, the detonation seemed to pass by as just another action moment...really cool to hear & look at, but we didn't get ANY sympathy for the people being killed! They should have had some people holding hands, SOMETHING to humanize it, rather than minimize it!
One of the things I missed in the movie was the episode in the ballroom when Laurie confronts Blake, after she has learned he tried to rape her mom. And yes, the characters of the newsdealer and the comicbook-reading kid, the psychiatrist and his wife, and even the first Night Owl who is killed by gang thugs, add to the compenetration of the reader in the Watchmen world, which then serves as the booster of the horror you feel when Ozymandias fulfill his cold-hearted plan.
Now think about relatively recent events, and the grim horizon we're being shown, and tell me that a film like _Watchmen_ isn't timely propaganda meant as an apology for despicable acts of mass violence in the name of "political necessity." Who was this film made for, people like Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Perle & Wolfowitz?! For the social engineers researching ruthless forms of population control? I never saw Snyder's _300_ film because it had sounded like historically-inaccurate, war-glorifying propaganda. My mind returns to that fact the more I think about his version of _Watchmen_.
Like I stated earlier, I do think that throughout history there have been men in power to whom "the end justifies the means", and this is something way older than Dubya and his accomplices. The question that Watchmen asks is whether some moral basis applies when trying to assess human losses in a bean-counter fashion. It is something that should keep you awake at night... ad that's a good thing!
Are they trying to leave the public with the idea that, "Hey, if horrible things start happening to the population, it's really just for your own good"?! If you wanna make omelets, you gotta break a few eggs..? That's the sort of taste that the film left me with, and I don't like it.
I don't like that taste in the mouth either; and the reason I don't it's because in my case, in the novel as in the film I end up disagreeing with Rorschach, who is the great hero of the story! My own moral decission disgusts me. Do you suppose those men in power today feel the same way? that should give us reason to pause, I think.
Anyone feel I'm off track here?
Not at all. I think it's a valid reaction to the movie. And I for one I'm happy that the pop culture allows the release of content that provokes such deep questions to be formulated.
That's really what I love about Watchmen. Because I for one have never been fan of the repetitive fights and meaningless comfrontations depicted in the Super-hero genre. Watchmen is the anti-thesis of all that... and I dig that!
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
2 May 2004
5 days 8 hours
Yep, way off track -- in my opinion. Snyder's Watchmen isn't supporting Bush Co society at all, I have no idea how you got that from the film. I guess it's hard to get post-modern irony. Google interviews with Zach Snyder and Alan Moore talking about their versions, it'll set your record straight. Many people said the same about the original comic, that it was glorifying violence and fascism etc. (and I know many people who recommended the comic to me who worship Rorschach and the Comedian as heroes, which is the opposite of Moore's intentions!).
If the film was released two years ago, during Bush Co's reign, you would be thinking differently. It just doesn't have the same impact released during Obama's admin, and this dramatically changes the way it affects audiences. Because most people have pretty much forgotten what Bush Co did. It's true, it's like Bush Co barely existed. People remember Nixon, but most people have got collective amnesia when it comes to a government that brought the world to its knees only a few years ago. Which is why this film should have been made and released several years ago, it's two years too late. But that's just timing, no fault of the film makers. Snyder isn't glorifying Rorschach's nihilism or the Comedian and the fascist state of Nixon, not one little bit. I really don't see Snyder supporting the Bush Co way in the film. Reading interviews with Snyder, he gets EXACTLY what Moore was on about. Maybe you see it this way because the film deals heavily with Rorschach's world view (in Moore's words, an absolute psychopathic "nutcase")?
But really, the film doesn't bother me. The graphic novel hasn't been rewritten, it's still the same one for sale everywhere. The reactions of some graphic novel fans who hate the movie are nothing short of hysterical.
7 March 2009
6 days 14 hours
I'm talking about the concept of justifying away conspiracies as being "for the public's own good." Which is what the movie indicated--"peace and love" springing out all across the globe; all the situation needed was some mega-death to be written off as heroic sacrifices--
I've studied 9/11 too much to swallow that crap, and THAT is the link to Bush & Co, by way of the conspiracy angle. Sacrificing a few thousand for "the greater good", dictated by "cool logic" and "political necessity."
To me it just feels like the movie is emphasizing what a cool & genius plan it was on Ozymandias's part, without the nuanced warning offered in the graphic novel (via the Black Freighter comic, etc.).
And these issues aside, to me this should have remained a graphic novel---that's the medium it was meant for. I feel more eager to re-read the comic than to re-view the film. Some of the acting was really clunky, the sex scene was kinda stupid & tacky, the "Blake's your father!" angle seemed a little cliched & over-emphasized... Also, I didn't think Dr. Manhattan's voice matched his look very well...
I'll look into those interviews, though--thanks for the rec.
2 May 2004
5 days 8 hours
Reminds me of Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. Have you seen it? The message at the end seemed to be, "you're not ready for ET knowledge and the truth" (Agent Spalko wanted the knowledge and truth, and was destroyed, but Indy wisely said no and ran). I wondered then if Spielberg was telling us something about the UFO/ET aspect, that we aren't ready for the truth about ET.
Yeah, the Black Freighter was a big omission. Snyder says it wasn't a subversive move not to include it in the movie, he just couldn't convince the studio to include it in an already 3 hour long film. So Snyder made an animated Black Freighter movie to compliment the main movie, which should be released soon. It's just a shame it wasn't in the theatrical cut. Snyder wanted it to be in, but couldn't do it -- I would gladly have seen other scenes get cut to make way for the Black Freighter.
The movie should've been two or three films, but no way the studio would have gone for that. And personally, I didn't like that Snyder focused more on the violence and sex than he did the philosophies of the graphic novel. The philosophies are still there, it's just the nature of the beast with film adaptations unfortunately. You have to betray the original in a way.
My personal opinion of the film -- I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it. I don't however understand the hate the film is getting from some quarters, the film isn't that bad and did a decent job of adapting the graphic novel. It could have been much better, but it also could have been much worse. But even people who didn't like the film are going out and reading the graphic novel, and discovering a whole new world.
And have fun with the Alan Moore interviews! He's one weird cat.
2 May 2004
5 days 8 hours
My review: not as great as I'd hoped, but not as bad as I'd feared. Some will love it, some will hate it, some will yawn and wonder what the fuss was all about.
9 April 2008
15 weeks 3 days
I went to see it yesterday, excited because I thought it looked like a great film. I'd read the graphic novel when I was a teenager, and liked it, but because I hadn't read it critically I didn't hold it in reverence. And then I avoided it, because I wanted to experience the film on its own terms.
And while it's not a perfect film, I think it is very, very good. People seem to have had a problem with pacing, but for me, not being a fan of the current crop of 'shake a camera at the action WILDLY it will give the film ENERGY' action films (Bourne, Bond etc) the pace suited me fine. And the locked-off frames, the meditative pace of some sequences compared to the powerful action sequences, worked perfectly for me. During the film I was picking up on motifs, and I'm sure that repeat veiwings will yeild a goldmine of others.
On the downside, the acting was a little clunky occassionally, the sex scene in 'Archie' was cheesily done, and didn't express what it should have, and there wasn't a deep enough emotional core -- during climactic, emotional scenes, I was still waiting for exposition, rather than empathising with what was on screen. There was also the matter of not focussing on the human tragedy of the explosions toward the end of the film, but I think that was very much in-keeping with the views expressed in the film ,and the message I took from it -- masses are unimportant, it is individuals that make life special: Dr Manhatten rediscovers humanity through Laurie, Night Owl finally loses it after Rorschach dies for instance.
The other criticism it seems to have garnered is that it sticks too slavishly to its source material and doesn't gel as a film. Not having read the source material before going into the film, I didn't find that to be a problem, and was able to enjoy it as a film. I honestly think that the reviewers who made that statement were (consciously or unconsciously) looking to mark it down somehow: either it didn't match the soruce material, or it matched it too closely.
On the whole, I enjoyed it -- it didn't even feel that long to me, and I can't wait to experience the full director's cut, with the animation thrown in too. Watchmen is a brave, technically brilliant film, which stands on its own feet: if you allow yourself to forget that it is based on a graphic novel.
http://grthink.deviantart.com
12 April 2007
50 min 26 sec
On the downside, the acting was a little clunky occassionally, the sex scene in 'Archie' was cheesily done, and didn't express what it should have
That there's nothing like doing heroic stunts to increase your libido? :-P
Great comment, BTW
And getting back to Turner Young's proposition —that a multi-chapter HBO series would have been a better format than a 2 or 3-hour movie— I thought about it all weekend, and I came to the conclusion that they could still do a prequel series about the Watchmen universe.
I know many purists are having a seizure right not reading this, but think about it: in a prequel series you could explore things like how Nite Owl and Rorschach first met and decided to become allies—and that sure couldn't have been easy, with Rorschach being a lone wolf and a sociopath— I bet you could find interesting material there.
So I would love to see a SciFi channel or HBO series that explored in detail the characters and events in the Watchmen world prior to the events depicted in the original novel.
If they could do it with the Sarah Connor chronicles, why not with Watchmen?
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
9 April 2008
15 weeks 3 days
Cheers RPJ -- they are already releasing prequel episodes: As downloadable episodes on Xbox 360. And although they've kind of got the look down, it's just a straightforward beat 'em up and the saddest, sorriest thing to come from this whole thing.
http://grthink.deviantart.com
12 April 2007
50 min 26 sec
(...)And although they've kind of got the look down, it's just a straightforward beat 'em up and the saddest, sorriest thing to come from this whole thing.
Well, that sounds godawful. I would like to see a prequel Watchmen series not as an excuse for superhero fights. If there's something that made me love Watchmen was precisely because it eschewed the simple elements of the comic genre that aim to appeal only young males.
I loved Watchmen jut as I loved Battlestar Galactica, or The Matrix, because it asked deep philosophical questions; and the Sci Fi or Fantasy part was just an envelope to view those questions from a new fresh angle.
But let's not despair. Surely there are smart people in the TV business who could see the potential of making an intelligent product with the Watchmen universe. We waited almost a quarter of a century to see this novel come to the big screen. We can wait a bit more ;-)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie