WATCHMEN review
The comic book series was a jarring, mature-themed milestone. Its effects on popular culture have been undeniable. And now, finally, after many aborted attempts to bring the landmark story to the big screen, it’s finally happened. “Watchmen” is a movie. By now, most of us probably know the basic premise – it’s an alternate version of 1985, one in which super heroes are real, but were long ago banned. The ramifications of that include everything from Richard Nixon continuing on and on as the president of the United States, to a superhuman factor in the U.S./Soviet arms race. The fans of the book will generally be happy with this movie – I should know, I am such a fan, and in the dark of the theater, I loved nearly every moment of this meticulously detailed adaptation. All 163 minutes of it. My non-fan wife, on the other hand, found it long and mostly non-engaging. Ambitious, yes, and definitely worthwhile, if only for the spectacle of it all. But aloof and remote, all the same. Upon further reflection, in the harsh light of the theater lobby and beyond, I can see her point.
Director Zack Snyder counts himself among the legion of “Watchman” fans, and upon his taking this job, he set out to make sure the movie adaptation was “done the right way”. Ask any fan what that means, and you’re almost certain to hear that that means a panel-for-panel literal realization of as much of the Alan Moore/Dave Gibbons ultra-dense source material as can fit into the feature length running time. And that’s precisely what we get. But the fans bliss of seeing the book come to life eventually gives way to the casual viewer’s feeling of top-heavy tedium. Think about the first two “Harry Potter” movies, the ones directed by Chris Columbus. I know first hand that for the non-fan, those movies felt pretty much the same way – top heavy and hindered by their slavishness. Yes, I could admire them, but the filmmaker’s fear of cutting the umbilical cord is all too apparent.
The second problem with the “Watchmen” movie is arguably the more problematic of the two, as it threatens the enjoyment for even the devoted fans. The problem is this – rather than being a drama set in the gritty “real world”, which just happens to be inhabited by a few costumed nut jobs (ala “The Dark Knight”, the way the “Watchmen” comic story was conceived and told), “Watchmen” plays like an exaggerated comic book movie with real world issues and history injected to its core. The poses and framing are often a bit too deliberate, too strikingly artificial. The fight scenes are more video game violent, complete with choreographed, echoing bone cracks, as opposed to any kind of believable precariousness one might expect to encounter in such a situation. With its nonstop barrage of sociology, politics, psychology, physics, and character development, this deliberately stylized take on classic “Watchmen” reality feels a bit inauthentic. For me it wasn’t a deal breaker, but it does rob it of any “masterpiece” status I might’ve awarded it with, upon leaving my seat.
One more minor gripe – the choice to populate the soundtrack with highly recognizable rock songs is a very hit-and-miss endeavor. It’s true that many of these songs are cited directly in he source material, but that still doesn’t change the fact that when we hear the first strains of Simon & Garfunkel’s “The Sound of Silence”, we immediately think of “The Graduate”, which is no ones intention. The same goes for otherwise worthwhile music by Leonard Cohen, Bob Dylan, and even Philip Glass. The use of “Ride of the Valkyries” during a Vietnam War sequence is particularly distracting. That music has been so many times to reference and spoof “Apocalypse Now” - I don’t know what Snyder was hoping to achieve by featuring it in this context in this film. Especially when there are so many other pieces of music with considerably less baggage that readily evokes the Vietnam War. But I digress…
On the plus side, this is another very audacious film in the Zack Snyder oeuvre. (Joining his surprisingly triumphant remake of “Dawn of the Dead”, and the superior comic book adaptation, “300”.) “Watchmen” is not a failure on the whole. I don’t even think it’s a bad movie, per se. It sets out to be a densely disturbing grown-up epic, and it delivers in that department. (Under no circumstances should children be allowed to see this film.) Only, as far as modern epics go, this is more of a dry “Dr. Zhivago” as opposed to a monumental “Lawrence of Arabia”.
Since the late 1980s, there have been rumors of everyone from Terry Gilliam to Paul Greengrass having their hooks in this property. It’s probably true that no matter who ended up making whatever version of “Watchmen”, fans would, on some level, come away a bit disappointed. Zack Snyder’s slavishly devoted version is not a total failure by any stretch, but on the other hand, having now finally seen it, one can’t help but wonder what that modernized “War on Terror” themed version that Paul Greengrass was working on would’ve been like. We all know that books and movies are two different things, with different strengths and weaknesses. One does not always directly translate to the other medium. We all know that. But sometimes, some of us have to relearn that lesson. My wife doesn’t regret having seen this movie, and neither do I. But nonetheless, be careful what you wish for, fans…
- Jim Tudor
