Register Now!

Media

  • scannerscanner
  • scannerscreengrab
  • modern materialistthe modern
    materialist
  • video61 frames
    per second
  • videothe remote
    island
  • date machinedate
    machine

Photo

  • sliceslice with
    american
    suburb x
  • paper airplane crushpaper
    airplane crush
  • autumn blogautumn
  • chasechase
  • rose & oliverose & olive
Scanner
Your daily cup of WTF?
ScreenGrab
The Hooksexup Film Blog
Slice
Each month a new artist; each image a new angle. This month: American Suburb X.
ScreenGrab
The Hooksexup Film Blog
Autumn
A fashionable L.A. photo editor exploring all manner of hyper-sexual girls down south.
The Modern Materialist
Almost everything you want.
Paper Airplane Crush
A San Francisco photographer on the eternal search for the girls of summer.
Rose & Olive
Houston neighbors pull back the curtains and expose each other's lives.
chase
The creator of Supercult.com poses his pretty posse.
The Remote Island
Hooksexup's TV blog.
61 Frames Per Second
Smarter gaming.
Date Machine
Putting your baggage to good use.

The Screengrab

Screengrab Review: “Watchmen”

Posted by Scott Von Doviak

 


There are a million reasons a Watchmen movie should never have been made and no good reason it should have, aside from the obvious one: superheroes are big box office, and Watchmen was one of the most tantalizing untouched superhero properties available. It’s also an incredibly dense, multi-layered work, deriving much of its power from its subversion of five decades worth of comic book conventions. Having read the script Sam Hamm penned for Terry Gilliam’s aborted attempt at mounting Watchmen for the screen back in the early ‘90s, I know the new adaptation of the acclaimed graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons from “visionary director” Zack Snyder isn’t the worst case scenario. Nor does it exceed expectations. It’s just sort of pointless, which is what most fans of the classic comic have probably been expecting all along.

So can we separate the movie from its source material and judge it on its own merits? We can try, but Snyder doesn’t make it easy. It’s not a good sign when the movie kicks off with the image of an aging Richard Nixon portrayed by an actor wearing a ridiculous putty ski-slope nose and tons of awful aging makeup, quickly followed by a “Pat Buchanan” who looks and sounds exactly nothing like Pat Buchanan. The set-up here, should you be completely unfamiliar with the world of Watchmen: it’s 1985, and Richard Nixon has been re-elected to an unprecedented fifth term as President. Tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union are at an all-time high, and nuclear war appears to be inevitable.

The events of this alternate timeline have been aided and abetted by costumed heroes, among them The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), who helped lead the U.S. to quick victory in Vietnam. As Watchmen opens, the aging Comedian is murdered in his own apartment, leading masked vigilante Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) to believe that someone is picking off the Watchmen, a superhero group whose members also include dumpy Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson), sultry Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman), and superhuman Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup, boasting a pendulous blue schlong that may disturb and frighten younger viewers – or any viewers, really).

In the comics, Moore and Gibbons amplify the major plotlines concerning the hunt for the mask-killer and the quest to avert global armageddon with flashbacks to the heroes’ origins (some of which date back to a superhero team of the 1940s called the Minutemen), along with various subplots including a love triangle among Silk Spectre, Nite Owl and Dr. Manhattan and a prison detour for Rorschach. To their credit, Snyder and screenwriters David Hayter and Alex Tse include as much of this material as possible (the Watchmen comic-within-the-comic Tales from the Black Freighter is getting a separate DVD release)…so why does the 168-minute running time still seem bloated beyond all necessity?

Part of it comes down to your definition of what constitutes a “faithful” adaptation. Great swaths of dialogue are lifted intact from the graphic novel, and the major visual set-pieces are painstakingly recreated (with at least one notable exception), and that may be enough to satisfy a segment of the audience. But the pacing is often leaden, the plotting lumpy and disjointed, the storytelling single-layered at best. The connective tissue between the big moments is thin to nonexistent; for instance, viewers coming to the movie cold may be forgiven for wondering how a sketchy character like Ozymandias (Matthew Goode and his dreadful wandering accent) turns out to be so crucial to the proceedings. Snyder seems most fully engaged when the action is at its most conventional, as when Nite Owl and Silk Spectre rescue kids from a burning building or Rorschach fends off assailants in prison.

Watchmen does have its moments. The closest it comes to capturing the texture of the graphic novel is the lyrical sequence in which Dr. Manhattan, having exiled himself to Mars, relives the events that led to his transformation into a godlike being. There’s visual razzle-dazzle to spare: an arctic fortress, a demolished city, a massive clockwork gizmo floating above the surface of Mars. And Jackie Earle Haley is terrific – he knows he’s playing a Clint Eastwood character times five, and he brings the appropriate psycho gusto to lines like “I’m not locked in here with you – you’re locked in here with me!”

I’ll even give Snyder some credit for improving the ending slightly, which wasn’t difficult (blasphemy, I know, but I re-read the last two Watchmen issues last night just to refresh my memory and that is not good stuff). But I can’t think of too many “visionary” directors who would use so many obvious, overplayed music cues (the love scene set to Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” is snicker-out-loud embarrassing) or cast so many nonentities in major roles (the listless Akerman is the worst offender). His approach is depressingly literal, and none of the scenes build on what has come before – they’re just meticulously reconstructed Scenes From Watchmen. It took more than 20 years to bring his most famous work to the big screen, and now Alan Moore isn’t the only one wondering why anybody bothered.


+ DIGG + DEL.ICIO.US + REDDIT

Comments

danrimage said:

I worry that every single clip I've seen of Watchmen has that 'grinding into slow motion and out again' visual effect that I can't fucking stand.....bad omen.The action scenes don't seem to have any weight or texture to them, they look (from the few that I've seen) to be simply reconstructed, moving tableaux of individual panels. The action sequences in any superhero/action movie are its bread and butter (no matter how deeply philosophical the dialogue , or well-drawn the characters). I always imagined the action in Watchmen to be shockingly fast and realistic (a la the fight scenes in Terminator 2, still some of the best action choreography I've ever seen) to go along with the 'far-fetched events happening in real lfe' theme. Methinks that the only guy currently working who could have done this justice was Paul Greengrass.

March 5, 2009 7:39 AM

Ivan Johnson said:

I have a pendulous purple ssclong and I have never gotten anything but accolades for it. I gues blue is just too much of a power color.

March 6, 2009 8:22 AM

Leave a Comment

(required)  
(optional)
(required)  

Add

in
Send rants/raves to

Archives

Bloggers

  • Paul Clark
  • John Constantine
  • Vadim Rizov
  • Phil Nugent
  • Leonard Pierce
  • Scott Von Doviak
  • Andrew Osborne
  • Hayden Childs
  • Sarah Sundberg
  • Lauren Wissot

Contributors

  • Kent M. Beeson
  • Pazit Cahlon
  • Bilge Ebiri
  • D.K. Holm
  • Faisal A. Qureshi
  • Vern
  • Bryan Whitefield
  • Scott Renshaw
  • Gwynne Watkins

Editor

  • Peter Smith

Tags

Places to Go

People To Read

Film Festivals

Directors

Partners