Watchmen Review
Mar 5, 2009 by Vic HoltremanIs Watchmen as awful as reviewers say or as awesome as bloggers claim? The answer lies somewhere in between.
Short version: Watchmen is an ultra-violent, sexually explicit mystery film (with a few costumed heroes thrown in) that is visually stunning, but uneven.
Screen Rant reviews Watchmen
I’ve really been dreading writing this review because frankly, I’m still not sure how I feel about Zack Snyder’s big screen adaptation of the revered graphic novel (yes, I’m calling it a graphic novel), Watchmen.
There are some films that I really wish I could watch TWICE prior to writing a review: Big, highly-anticipated blockbusters tend to taint my initial viewing with expectations. Ideally there would be one viewing where I’d just let the film wash over me and then a second viewing where I could be more objective and analytical.
A little background for context: I read the graphic novel once, last year, following the San Diego Comic-Con. I’m not a die-hard devotee of the book, but I recognize that at the time it was written it was groundbreaking in its approach to the superhero genre. I don’t remember every nuance or panel of the story, but I remember enough for the film to make sense to me.
The problem is – I can’t “unremember” the book in order to give you the point of view of someone coming to the film with little knowledge of the story, and I’m not so into it that I can compare it detail by detail to the book – so take this review for what it’s worth. Some of you will end up agreeing with me and others will probably call me an idiot… such is the life of a guy who runs a movie website.
First off, for the uninitiated, you should know a couple of things:
- This is NOT really a superhero movie in the sense that we’ve come to know the genre. It’s not X-Men or Spider-Man – it’s not even The Dark Knight… it’s really more of a murder mystery with a bit of superhero action thrown in for flavor.
- It also seriously EARNS its R-rating, people. This is NOT a film you should bring your kids to because “it’s a superhero movie.” There is extremely graphic, horror movie-level gore, scenes of intense, realistic violence, full frontal male nudity throughout the film – and a very explicit sex scene.
Watchmen is also a very “dense” film, one that a viewer will no doubt pick up more details and nuances upon repeated viewings, so I won’t be covering a lot of detail here as far as story.
The film opens with a montage of scenes giving us the history of costumed vigilante crime fighters back in the 1940s. It’s pretty damned cool looking back and seeing men and women wearing homemade costumes and masks taking on muggers and such, sometimes even posing for the newspaper photographers in the middle of capturing the bad guys.
These are the glory days of the masked crime fighter, with society loving them and the heroes enjoying the heck out of what they do – even forming a loose alliance with one another. Eventually in the film we see some of these older “superheroes” who are now either dead or retired – trying to live normal lives.
The Comedian meets his end in Watchmen
From there we move to the iconic scene from the book – The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), now in his 60s, sitting at home in his apartment when a shadowy figure breaks in and beats him to a bloody pulp – culminating in his murder via being thrown out of a window high above street level.
It is now 1985 and masked vigilantes have been outlawed by the government for almost 15 years; Richard Nixon is in his 5th term as President, and the world is on the brink of a nuclear war between the United States and Russia.
Rorschach/Walter Kovacs (Jackie Earle Haley) is a vigilante who has told the government to go screw itself and still prowls the streets at night. As depicted in the film, I would say that he is probably portrayed as some Liberals imagine all Conservatives to be. He’s borderline crazy (if not actually over the edge), but he knows where he stands and what he believes in – to a fault. He doesn’t believe the killing of the Comedian was a burglary gone bad – he thinks that it was outright murder and that someone is tracking down ex-heroes one by one in an attempt to wipe them out.
This mystery is in fact the crux of the film – we follow Rorschach through his investigation and along the line we meet other ex-heroes Nite Owl II/Dan Dreiberg (Patrick Wilson) and Silk Spectre II/Laurie Jupiter (Malin Akerman). Dan lives a quiet, lonely life (he comes across as a bit of a geek) while Laurie has a relationship with the one true superhero in the story: Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup). Things are strained between Laurie and Dr. Manhattan, as he is slipping farther and farther away from humanity due to his god-like powers and intellect.
Rorschach tells Dan his theory about a “mask-killer” (they were once partners) and Dan goes off to warn Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) that his life may be in danger as well. Adrian is a super-genius billionaire who created his mega-corporation after vigilantism was banned. He is supremely confident and is determined to change the world for the better and bring it back from the brink of nuclear destruction.
Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre II and Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl II
The film takes us through Dan and Laurie rediscovering that the only time they really feel alive is when they’re in full costume, out there fighting crime. As a matter of fact, Dan goes through a Clark Kent to Superman transformation once he dons his costume, changing from a clumsy, impotent coward, into (as Jesse Ventura so eloquently said in Predator) a sexual Tyrannosaurus.
Overall, what this story is about is showing how really messed up in the head people who put on bizarre costumes to go out and beat up bad guys would be if they actually existed in the real world. We’re talking about your next door neighbor putting on a batsuit complete with mask and cape, going downtown and beating up people so badly that they had to go to the hospital. Sure, it sounds good in a comic book or a movie, but would you really want to live next door to that guy? Would you really feel safe?
Watchmen follows the book very closely for the most part. Where it deviates mainly is via omission of certain aspects of the book and the ending. But what you see on the screen follows the imagery in the book to a “T.” Visually, I don’t think anyone could have done a better job with bringing the artwork from the book to life. I do think that some of what was omitted (and may be in the director’s cut for all I know) might have brought more humanity to the film. In particular what you’ll find missing if you’ve read the book is anything having to do with the old magazine stand guy and the young man reading “Tales of the Black Freighter” while keeping him company.
The format of the film is such that you don’t get to know some of the characters until you’re pretty deep into the film. We don’t get to see the pre-Dr. Manhattan Jon Osterman until we’re probably over an hour into the film. The movie jumps around quite a bit, and I don’t know how that will go over with people who aren’t familiar with the original story. It seems to me that perhaps some license should have been taken with the structure of the film considering the fact that the original story took place in 12 separate comic book issues spread over the course of an entire year. But if you know the story, this won’t bother you at all.
Naked Dr. Manhattan with the naughty bits blurred (as they aren’t in the film)
Visually, Zack Snyder did a fantastic job with Watchmen. The incredible attention to detail in everything from the background sets to the props and costumes is really something to see. Of course one aspect of the film I could have stood to see a bit less of was Dr. Manhattan’s penis. The logic of the story was that eventually he becomes so detached from human norms that he doesn’t see the point of wearing any clothing. However I’m pretty sure I don’t recall Mr. Happy being so prevalent in the book. Here we’ve got full body shots all over the place and frankly, it was a bit distracting (I’ll never look at Blue Man Group quite the same way again).
The CGI effects for Dr. Manhattan were very impressive, except when it came to him actually speaking – there was a bit of the “uncanny valley” effect at work there and it just didn’t look quite right.
Far and away the best thing about Watchmen was Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. The man is mesmerizing and his performance rivals that of Heath Ledger as the Joker. I loved his interpretation of the how the character would sound, and when he gets to prison you’ll be jumping out of your seat at just how awesome he is.
Jackie Earle Haley about to go ballistic in Watchmen
Another bright spot was the despicable Comedian. Jeffrey Dean Morgan was great to watch… he was just SO twisted that you couldn’t turn away and he just draws you in.
So what didn’t work? I thought that both Malin Akerman and Carla Gugino were quite weak. Akerman’s performance came across as pretty shallow to me, and Gugino’s first real scene in the film as an old woman almost had me laughing out loud because it seemed so campy. I could take or leave Patrick Wilson’s performance – maybe it was just the character he was playing that left me cold.
I also really didn’t think that Matthew Goode was the best choice for Veidt/Ozymandias. He seemed too frail of build to me, and this became much more of an issue in the final scenes in the film where he displayed what seemed to be superhuman strength in a film where the only super-powered being is supposed to be Dr. Manhattan. This also came up in the early scene where the Comedian is fighting for his life – he punches through what looks like solid brick, and while it might look cool, it didn’t seem to make sense.
Matthew Goode as Adrian Veidt
Aside from the Comedian and Rorschach (and maybe even Dr. Manhattan), I never really felt drawn into the characters in the film. They felt like, well, characters – instead of real people. I suppose it was almost akin to an Opera, where you’re very aware of what you’re watching as an observer. It was so obviously trying to honor the source material that you could actually TELL that’s what it was doing.
So in the end, is Watchmen a good film? I think so. Was it a great or close to perfect film? I’d have to say no. It felt long to me, and we have the issues I pointed out above. It is however yet another comic book-based movie that breaks the mold, and lays the groundwork for more non-traditional comic book stories to be turned into films.
I think it’s definitely worth seeing, and I’ll be very curious to hear what you think of it. I really think Watchmen is destined to be a cult movie – not very mainstream, but with a smaller and very dedicated core of fans loving it as time goes on.
Our Rating:
4 out of 5
Around the web:
Loading ...
Hey Vic,
Appreciate your view and politely disagree with some of your points.
I am one of those that can be considered a rabid fan of the book (comic, graphic novel, pulp story, sci-fi, etc, etc…) and was entirely prepared for a flop while hoping for greatness.
I thought it was an awesome, awe-inspiring great movie. If I had never read the book maybe I wouldn’t believe so, however, I never felt a lag and the time flew by for me.
I loved the character choices, especially the women, both Akerman and Gugino personified Laurie and Sally perfectly. In my understanding of the book, these two women are perfect in their roles.
For me, Manhattan was the cream of the crop, uncanny valley be damned, I was never taken out of the story by the indestructible man and his hollow, serene delivery touched with a twang of sadness.
My wife, who has read the book as well, commented on how the movie was so successful in bringing the humanity out of the characters while remaining completely dog-loyal to the book.
I have to agree with El Guapo’s assessment, the movie is better than the book in many ways. Uh-oh, unpardonable sin committed!
I loved this movie and absolutely cannot wait to view the extended versions as I could notice where the cuts were made for this theatrical run.
Anyway, it completely resonated with me and will be returning for round two tonight on IMAX.
Hope this helps anyone worried, for as a huge fan of the novel, I LOVED WATCHMEN.
Another quick thing…
The blue wiener issue was as big a deal for the wife and I as it was in the book, revealing but not distracting.
And for us there was no other association than that…
My goodness! I have read reviews ranging from a complete failure to mediocre to good to freaking awesome.
@SK47
To me, when you take a dozen or so comic books that form one story and bind them into one publication for sale – that is now a graphic novel IMHO.
Vic
@ John “Kahless” Taylor
Tell me about it…I guess I’ll have to go see and make the judgement call myself.
And I respect your opinion, Vic.
By the way, does the film make you feel as if you were back in the 80s or is it taken as nostalgia? Guess that depends on the viewer, what was your take?
@SK47
I’d say the movie is very effective at putting you back in the 1980s.
Vic
I gotta say that I liked it, but didn’t like the end. After about a 30 minute drive I started to like the ending. It is the only way to do it. It left me thinking after a while though much like the book left me thinking. I can’t wait for the extended version. It will be much better. I think after a few viewings I will like it more. Overall it was a great movie.
BTW super hero hype is reporting $4.6M for last night’s midnight showings ($2.5M for 300)
@Vic:
That makes sense. I’d hate to see you review on a 4-star scale! I loved 300, which I saw about 18 months ago on Blu-ray, but I don’t know if I’d want to watch it now. It came on TV the other day (letterboxed, so don’t get too upset), and I wasn’t drawn in.
heath
I’ll always think that movies like this should be reviewed by someone who has not read the book or at least someone who is able to forget the book and put this movie on it’s own. I make a point to almost never compare a movie to the book and accept it as an individual work of art. Sometimes I am very pleased and find the movie to be better and sometimes I want to cry at how terribly ruined the film is (I am Legend), but I always try to view the movie on it’s own with out comparing it to the book. I never read watchmen as a kid and once the movie was getting made I fought the urge to go read it so I can view the movie individually. I will wait to read the comic until after I see the movie and can fairly judge it as a stand alone.
@Daniel
I did my best.
Vic
i thought the nudity was no problem at all, i mean i see my junk everyday (i’m an artist so sometimes other mens, when working from models) and i see female nude bodies constantly (in person, movies, internet, live models). the bits are there, why ignore them, just realize we’re adults (rated R) and so we should be mature enough to see a blue penis on screen.
Whatever you all who have not seen it yet do, do not read the Watchmen threads on rottentomatoes. Some petaQ gave away a major, and I do mean MAJOR, spoiler!
I saw the movie last night and I read the book(novel,comic,whatever), about 3-4 times. Because that’s how many times it took for me to get it. The movie left out alot of little details. Like how come SilkSpec2 is never angry? Like at her mom, Rorshack. And why is Ozy so small and yet so much stronger and faster? The book told you those details. And why the long sex scene? It was hot but had little to do with anything. I didn’t like the ending becuase it was a happy ending. It was too easy to get. While the book left me thinking wow, what now? How do all of these people we’ve been reading about deal with this? But it wasn’t bad. I liked ALL of the characters and thought they did very good acting. Morgan as Comedian and Haley as Ror were spot on. Ozy was good too, just not big enough. The movie could have broken up into 2 maybe 3 movies. Lord of the Rings did it. But oh well, at least it was made. For the first time I will have to say it. The book was better than the movie.
About Dr. Manhattan. I see it as nudity, not “crude-ity.” Someone was reminded me of the statue of David. I recall the popular anatomical illustration with the nude man spreadeagled inside a circle (Possibly a Michelangelo line drawing?)
Most obscene words are based on body parts or functions, so it’s no surprise “junk” is in vogue now. But I’m no fan of using that word to refer to genitalia.
The cinema private parts issue that will offend me repeatedly this summer is seeing trailers for PG summer movies with day camp lovelies, adopted brats, or frat buddies, and even animated characters, all with obligatory Joe Gets Hit In The Crotch scenes.
The only thing I have to say, after reading the above posts, is that for all of you who have a problem with nudity (man’s native state) in any form, then the problem is within yourselves, not the nudity. If we grew up in logical cultures unhindered by religious pseudo-ethics, this would not only be a non-issue, the posts would likely be asking why THE REST OF THE CAST is not nude. Anyhow, have not seen the movie, but will see it, definitely.
As i said before, i thought the sound track was perfect, 99 red baloons, a song about the cold war, fit perfectly as well as all of the Bob Dylan written songs: The Times They Are A Changin’, All Along The Watchtower, and Desolation Row. Bob Dylan used to be the voice of the people and it seems Mr. Snyder was using that in this movie. And i thought the ending was a good inacuracy for the movie because it fit and that scenario could have been used in the books. And i loved how they showed how Dr. Manhatten through all the stages of becoming Dr. Manahattan.
@charles darwin
Admit it, you’re a nudist, aren’t you.
Vic
Vic, I’ll be seeing the film tomorrow, but you’ve really out done yourself with this review. I know I’ll seem stupid for saying this, but I was not aware that critics didn’t get to see the film any more than one time before the official release for their reviews. After realizing that, I appreciate your talents even more (don’t mean to sound like a suck up or anything).
I’ve read the book 5 times, and am looking forward to the film. Your review expressed some of my “fears” about what the movie would be like.
So I understand that Dr Manhattan’s twig and berries are shown quite a bit, or at least more than you could tolerate, lol.
But I have a question about the sex scene(s) tho, the one with Nite Owl and Silk Spectre (which didn’t seem that long in the book, matter of fact, it was more of a “pre sex, post sex” type thing) (Vic doesn’t necessarily have to answer this, anyone who’s seen the movie can feel free to chime in with their comments as well): How long did it go on? Was it like a soft core porno type thing or was it more like a typical “passionate” sex scene common in “R” rated movies?
Oh, and did Rorshach kill the dogs like he did in the book?
Thanks.
I agree that Zack Snyder did a remarkable job with the visuals and for that alone, this movie is absolutely worth a view. Or two.
@ KEL
The sex scene was about 30 seconds long and it was soft core..
Rorschach kills the dogs though they don’t show him commit the act..
I disagree with charles, clothes are so useful for so many reasons besides so-called “religious pseudo-ethics.” I personally wouldn’t want to sit on any public seat if any part of my flesh have to make contact with it. I live in a really sunny place and I like that my body is shielded from the sun’s harmful (and uncomfortable) rays. When it’s cold… well, you should already know where this is going. I personally like it more when I’m not… flopping… around… And the last, and MOST important way clothes are beneficial to society: Boobs stay nicer if kept in bras more often, not as much sagging over time.
Anyway, I love when certain people make it out that religious “pseudo-ethics” is such a bad reason to have laws when those are the people who want MORE government control, laws, legislation, and what-not using completely illogical reasoning as a basis for those laws…
A bit hypocritical if you ask me, but whatever makes you feel smarter than others, go ahead and knock yourselves out.
Sorry, but enjoying clothing isn’t an issue of religion. Personally I am atheist I don’t follow a religion or have a god of any kind. Guess what. I still love clothing. I feel more comfortable in clothing than naked. To be honest seeing a mans junk for almost 2 hours is disturbing to me. Not saying the film was bad just that it was hard to get beyond that part.
I never really looked at the “junk” Daniel..I knew it was there but it wasn’t all that I could look at on the screen..it certainly wasn’t up there for 2 hours.I guess some can’t not look at it when it’s on the screen….it certainly didn’t change the film for me or should I say it wasn’t a negative aspect of the film for me
@ KEL
One of the problems I have with Hollywood is that cinematically speaking it is okay to show someone bury a cleaver in someones head repeatedly but it’s not okay to show some guy killing a dog or animal..implying that an animal was killed is okay but as long as the act is not shown…Okay to maim, torture and mutilate human beings but not animals..that always seemed very strange and ludicrous to me..
Saw it yesterday. Dead dog in gutter.
Hurm.
Write more when beans digested.
@ Sylar’s Hunger Continues
I think the DaVinci drawing you are referring to is the “Vitruvian Man” and I saw David at the Gallery D’Acadmeia in Florence and it is certainly a majestic work of art that is something to behold in person..It is a lot bigger than I was expecting too..The point I am trying to make in both these classics of art history is that the male genitalia does nothing to take away from their beauty as works of art. DR Manhattan being shown naked was just a comment on the character…his blue body was just the form he chose to use so we could continue to relate to him being god-like..Nudity meant nothing to that character as he was no longer bounded by human constarints on sexuality and our ideas of morality and right and wrong..it is just flesh and in the grand scheme of the universe it is niether something to be ashamed of or proud of…
ALthough according to Dr.Manhattan..he is not sure God exists and even if God does exist..he is nothing like him…
Interesting he would say him though..