Movie Review: "Watchmen" - Joseph's take
Joseph Bélanger
Seen on: March 6, 2009
The players: Director: Zack Snyder, Writers: Alex Tse, David Hayter, Cast: Malin Akerman, Billy Crudup, Matthew Goode, Carla Gugino, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, and Patrick Wilson
Facts of interest: Based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons.
The plot: In an alternate 1985, someone is killing former costumed heroes, inspiring the few who remain to don their disguises again to uncover the truth.
Our thoughts: Up until last year, I have to admit I had never heard of “Watchmen.” Apparently, I was too far removed from the realm of the graphic novel to have heard of one of the most influential graphic novels of all time. This doesn’t surprise me, really, because I’m not that kind of geek (I’m a geek; just not that kind).
Still, it seems to me that a lot of the supposed diehards out there only really learned about “Watchmen” around the same time as I did. I know that’s not the case for everyone, but you would think that a classic of this supposed magnitude would have worked its way into the pop culture lexicon somewhat deeper and earlier than it did.
Still, here it is now, smothered in all of its hype and lore, and the question is: does it matter as much as they’d like us to think it does? More importantly, is “Watchmen” actually worth watching? The answer, at least in my humble opinion, is that yes, Snyder’s film is at least worth a gander.
The movie is a superhero flick of epic proportions, clocking in at somewhere close to three hours. It spends a great deal of that time demystifying the superhero image while delicately balancing that with maintaining the very same conventions it is trying to tear down.
Tricky? Yes; but Zack Snyder, the freshly minted “visionary” director of “300,” performs his own super feat by making it all fit together and maintaining a strong and mysterious intrigue almost throughout.
The term “visionary” is used pretty lightly these days, and, while I’m not ready to shower Snyder in accolades just yet, I will say that he has a good eye and, at the very least, a unique, if not bloody, vision. “Watchmen,” no matter how much or little meaning can be derived from it, is nothing if not visually exciting.
There is sometimes so much happening onscreen that you know you’ve missed at least one tiny detail that would have further filled the frame and satisfied your insatiable geek hunger pains.
Also, Snyder’s accomplishment is only more impressive considering there isn’t very much of a plot to hold the film together. It is set in the mid-80s, and Richard Nixon has just entered a third term as the U.S. president when the country is on the brink of the Cold War with Russia.
A band of masked avengers known as The Watchmen have been forced to disband after the public turned on them. This is the set up, but there is very little built past that. “Watchmen” meanders between character vignettes that are engaging on their own but don’t serve to move anything further along.
It isn’t as though this goes unnoticed either; I found myself occasionally removed and wondering if anything was actually going to happen. Unfortunately, it’s when the film finds its focus that it becomes much less effective. It practically plunges into cliché during its final act – from trapped screaming children in a burning building to secret lairs in the arctic – leaving me wishing it was going nowhere again.
Freaky quote: “An attack on one is an attack on all of us." – Jackie Earle Haley
The final word: It’s not easy being a superhero. And what is a superhero anyway? It’s just another guy dressed up in a silly uniform trying to find his purpose in the world before he comes home to a cold can of beans and a copy of Hustler to bring with as he crawls alone into bed at the end of the night.
The Watchmen are just men (and women) after all. And in the end, “Watchmen” is just another comic book movie; not the genre-defining masterpiece it touts itself to be.
Article by Joseph Belanger
Reader Comments (10)
Please read the graphic novel.
Look here, you say this is another comic book movie? That's what all the supposedly geeky movie experts say, but that's because you judged from the beginning, like all you experts did. You judged it to be a comic book movie right away and therefore treated it as so. Just try to analyze it, over-analyze it, and only then can you understand why this is so great.
I never read the comic and I walked into the film with high expectations and without judging it as a comic book film, but I came across quite a bit of things I didn't entirely like. That has nothing to do with judging anything beforehand.
I never read the novel either, and walked into the film with very high expectations. I found it riveting. The odd thing is, I hate comic book movies.
Watched it before reading the graphic novel & I was blown away...I started reading the comic as soon as I got home because it was just so incredible.
On a cinematography level, as well as the plot and visual intricacies of this film, I have NEVER seen anything like it in my life.
A must see!
I've never read the graphic novel and approached the film with reasonably low expectations. It gripped me right from the sensational opening scene to the final frame. What a blast, and so beautifully made too. The cast was fabulous with standout performances by Jackie Earle Haley, Patrick Wilson and Billy Crudup. I also loved the cameo by Stephen McHattie. For me, "Watchmen" was an absolute blast. Great entertainmen and one of the best pieces of pure pulp fiction I've seen in ages.. And the music was right on too. From the use of the Nat King Cole number at the beginning, to Simon and Garfunkel to Jimi Hendrix doing Dylan's "All Along the Watchtower". Even some Leonard Cohen. Wow.
In my humble opinion, this glorious superhero flick was way, way more enjoyable than "The Dark Knight".
Zack Snyder rocked my world with his remake of Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" and now he's done it again. You rule dude, thanks for "Watchmen", it was sooooo fucking cool. You made an old man very happy.
I'm not a huge comic book fan either, but I've got to say you're review borders on the pig-ignorant. Nothing happening? Nothing...happening?
What film were you watching? Do you go into modern art museums and walk out in a huff because they don't hang any Dutch masters? Christ, know your material, dingbat.
Well, to me, pretty much nothing happened for the first hour either. As one user commented on my review: "didn't they have a 20 minute intro of various old songs before the movie finally started?"
Good way to put it, haha
I guess it goes without saying that if you say anything even remotely negative about a movie aimed at and made for comic book fans, there is going to be some backlash. The producers brought the scrutiny on themselves though for overhyping this film instead of simply just allowing it to stand tall on its own merit. And yes, the film does have merit but it does have problems too. To the lovely reader who called me a dingbat for suggesting that nothing was happening in the film, I stand by my comment. I actually enjoyed the bizarre pacing Snyder established by drifting from one history lesson to the next but no present day story was progressing while that was happening on screen. It was as though they spent all the time telling us who they were and then threw in the near apocalypse at the end.
I loved they way they bridged different cultural generations throughout the movie, both with content (like the PC) in and with music