Meandering ‘Watchmen’ lacks passion or vision
Watchmen introduces us to a 1980s America that has turned on a once-beloved assortment of citizens-turned-superheroes, now outlawed. Two of the Watchmen continue their work for the government: Dr. Manhattan, a nuclear-powered physicist played by Billy Crudup, and the only one of the Watchmen with supernatural abilities; and the just-murdered Comedian, whom the skilled fighter and vigilante Rorshach — still active in spite of the government ban — believes to be the first victim in a government-sponsored Watchmen-killing spree.
Collaborating with Dr. Manhattan on a massive renewable energy project is the wealthy Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode), the only member of the Watchmen to have revealed his true identity to the world. Patrick Wilson is the mellow and retired Dan, formerly the Nite Owl, who’s got a thing for Dr. Manhattan’s girlfriend, Laurie (Malin Akerman), formerly Silk Spectre, and the only woman of the bunch.
With five estranged main characters, a murder mystery, the history of the Watchmen, family secrets, the Cold War, Nixon still in power, and a Doomsday Clock that broadcasts the probability of worldwide nuclear calamity, Watchmen has a lot of ground to cover. Unfortunately, for much of its three hour running time, Watchmen wanders aimlessly, and lacks passion or a clear vision.
The movie opens with the murder of the Comedian, and from the start it’s clear that director Zack Snyder will rely too heavily on stylistic flourishes to compensate for the meandering screenplay. Just as he did in his repulsive homophobic battle epic 300, he relies heavily on loud music and slow motion for emphasis, a tactic that should’ve been off limits to all filmmakers since The Matrix claimed it so effectively ten years ago.
I haven’t read the graphic novel by Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons and John Higgins on which the movie is based, and which is beloved by many fans. Based on its Wikipedia plot summary, the movie is extremely faithful to Moore’s story, maybe to its detriment. The idea of a five-term Nixon presidency may have seemed powerful and scary in the ’80s, but now the reality of that time — the specter of Reagan and the 30-year-trajectory of greed that haunts us today — is both more frightening and more relevant.
My interest level in the characters varied. The dynamic between Dr. Manhattan and Laurie is an interesting one. Manhattan’s perspective has shifted since he acquired his powers. He sees time as constant, and views everything objectively. Laurie sees him as removed, and borderline inhuman. Patrick Wilson infuses a little personality into Dan, who’s otherwise likable but dull. Finally, Veidt’s purpose is so singular as to become transparent.
Some things that bothered me, which I think are probably Alan Mooreisms, leftover from the comic: We learn some despicable things about the Comedian. We see him shoot an innocent and pregnant woman in the head, point blank. Another woman, he tries to rape. For a while, the movie neither condones nor rushes to condemn him; yet ultimately it seems to err on the side of sympathy. There is also some boys-will-be-boys-style fetishizing of underage girls, which made me seethe.
The bright light of the movie is Jackie Earle Haley as Rorshach. Haley was Oscar-nominated for his role in Little Children a few years ago. (That movie also starred Patrick Wilson.) Passionate, committed, and incredibly determined, Rorshach is an incredibly interesting character, and even though he is ultimately the driving force of the plot, he doesn’t get enough screen time. In the few showcase scenes the movie allots him, Haley is incredible; if Watchmen is worth seeing, it’s for him.
Related: Be sure to check out Sir Critic’s review of ‘Watchmen’
Permalink | Comments (5) | Post your comment | Categories: Movies
Services »
Comments
By Sir Critic
March 5, 2009 2:07 PM | Link to this
Nicely stated, Zack. You and I don’t always agree, but it looks like we’re pretty much eye to eye on this one. My guess is the faithful will love it, but the uninitiated? Not so much. I look for a huge opening, followed by a huge drop-off.By Moe
March 5, 2009 8:02 PM | Link to this
My greatest fear for this movie is that Zack Snyder doesn’t get the book. As one ofthe faithful (I’m in the midst of a re-read right now), I worry about the fact that the book isn’t fully understood by those making it. You’re review makes me think that I’m correct in this assumtion.By Zack
March 6, 2009 8:33 AM | Link to this
@Moe: I do still plan to read the book, but I think you’re probably right. In fact, I got a sense of the same thing. Slavish faithfulness, as Sir Critic put it, to source material tends to indicate to that a filmmaker is either too in love with his source, or doesn’t really “get it” as you say. Most good adaptations understand the need for sacrifice in its new form. Most good filmmakers would have the ability to understand and convey the tone, themes and ideas of the book without having to bring each page to the screen. If you don’t understand any of those things about your book, as you suspect Snyder didn’t, then your only option is extreme fidelity.By PaulyOH
March 6, 2009 5:33 PM | Link to this
You know, you might get a better feel for the movie if you had bothered to read the book. In fact, with a situation like Watchmen, one of the first questions people will have when reading a review is “How well does the movie translate from the book?” Without reading the source material, it’s difficult to answer this. And while this movie was faithful to the book, it was NOT “slavishly” faithful. There were plenty of parts changed or edited, beyond the obvious Black Freighter stuff that will be on DVD.By Tony
March 8, 2009 9:04 AM | Link to this
To PaulyOH: But you shouldn’t have to read the novel to enjoy the movie. The movie should be made so that everyone can get something out it, even if they didn’t read the graphic novel. If the movie was made to cater solely to those who have read and love the book, then the filmmakers are targeting a small audience. If someone hasn’t liked this movie everyone seems to point to “Well you haven’t read the graphic novel” and I’m just sick of it. I know many people who haven’t read the Harry Potter books but still love the film adaptations.