Watchmen,” the celebrated graphic novel (read: comic book), shattered the superhero mold when it came out in the mid-’80s.
Since then, “The Dark Knight” showed how a comic book movie could combine popcorn thrills with a serious look at societal ills.
Now that “Watchmen” has finally hit the big screen, the gap between the two couldn’t be wider.
Sure, “Watchmen” offers some singular thrills, from Zack Snyder’s snappy direction to a seriously twisted anti-hero in Rorschach. But it’s consistently self-indulgent and lacks the kind of bristling action sequence that will draw in mainstream crowds.
Instead, “Watchmen” settles for near blind allegiance to the source material. That might satisfy the base, but it only proves what works brilliantly on the printed page only goes so far on the big screen.
“Watchmen” is set in an alternate reality in which President Richard Nixon won the Vietnam War and was elected for multiple terms. But spiking tension between the U.S. and the Soviet Union put the globe on the brink of nuclear Armageddon.
Never mind that mutual self destruction has proven to be quite the deterrent for civilized nations. “Watchmen’s” political bent is often naive, leaning on the side of blind cynicism to score cheap points.
The story starts with a jolt when an aging superhero named The Comedian (a terrific Jeffrey Dean Morgan) is tossed out of a skyscraper window.
Could someone be gunning for masked avengers, or is something even bigger in play?
Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), a cloaked figure with a constantly evolving mask, aims to find out. He starts revisiting his old superhero pals, most of whom have been driven underground thanks to a law forbidding superheroes from plying their trade.
It’s one of many intriguing plot points that isn’t given enough time to develop.
There’s so much more to describe, from the mysterious blue hero named Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup and his CGI phallus) to themes of an America which no longer lives up to its lofty ideals.
It’s ambitious stuff, and at times “Watchmen” rises up to meet every ounce of hype thrown its way. But the film meanders for long stretches, including two laborious lovemaking scenes and an underbaked subplot involving the first Silk Spectre (Carla Gugino in unconvincing age makeup).
Haley’s Rorschach alternately steals and saves the movie. He’s mesmerizing throughout with only his gruff voice to guide us, but when he finally takes off his mask the character rises to delirious heights.
The film earns its R rating honestly with gross-out sequences of snapped limbs and other visual atrocities. But it often feels forced, as if playing to its audience’s baser instincts like some B-minus horror film.
Look, ma, it’s a comic book movie that plays out like a “Friday the 13th” sequel!
And the less said about the shoddy historical recreations, reliance on newspaper headlines to advance the story, use of overplayed background music like “The Sounds of Silence” and an awful Tricky Dicky imitator, the better.
“The Dark Knight’ fused a standard comic book story with a realistic vision of a world held hostage by terrorists. It delivered big action sequences and bigger social commentary for a devastating piece of pop entertainment.
“Watchmen” packs three times the ideas but forgets to deliver a comic book spectacle worthy of such ambitions.
(Photo: Patrick Wilson, Malin Akerman and Jackie Earle Haley star in the hotly anticipated comic book film “Watchmen.”)
Related posts:
on 
on 
on 
on 
{ 1 trackback }
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
I thoroughly enjoyed the flick… gore was a bit much but done in that comic book range that other than a few “gasp” audible grosses that snuck from my usually snapped shut mouth and a stomach ache from eating the popcorn that kept said mouth engaged while waiting for whats next…
The pacing was, at times slow, at other times too fast. Somethings that I wanted to know more about, I don’t. But then there is the graphic novel and animated adaptations to enjoy.
Its a full universe. And it begs to ask the question of the good of the many over the rights of the few. I was somewhat dissapointed that the connection to 9-11 — which I visually caught very clearly — and the failed chance to bring a world together against a common enemy versus invading Iraq — was not more evident.
Maybe I imagined it?
Or maybe our past governmental leaders were reading the wrong comic books… not that I have anything against Archie…
9/11 Unity? Obama within weeks was suggesting it was all our fault for supporting Israel and being “evil racists” in a written editorial, Charles Freeman, his head of the National Intelligence Council echoed that argument as did Susan Sontag, Michael Moore, and Norman Mailer.
Joe Biden, a month later suggested that US airmen be tried for war crimes for bombing Taliban and AQ camps in Afghanistan.
There was no unity and cannot be any unity because the US and all Western nations are deeply divided. Divided between the Joe the Plumber types, who hold to traditional values and patriotism as the best way for themselves and society to advance, and the Elites (who are basically superheroes) who hold that their own grasp on power is so important that NO FIGHTING BACK against ANY attacker be done at ANY time because it would require surrendering some power, prestige, social honor, to people like soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen.
This is why you see film after film after film making the point that the military is a bunch of debased, degraded, low-grade moronic killers, and the “real heroes” are self-moralizing, preening celebrities
Women generally, and feminized men, make the (false) point that the world felt “sorry for us” after 9/11 (Michael Chabon’s point) but we “wasted that sympathy” by well, doing anything. Which of course was false anyway, Paris and London and all around the world, people celebrated en-masse at the fall of the Twin Towers and the death toll.
Reality: it was never about us, one way or another, it was always about them and the desire of twisted killers in a twisted, polygamous and tribal system, getting ahead the only way possible, by amassing a mass-killing organization.
More of the fantasy of the corrupt, decadent, largely feminized elite thinking they can hold back the sea of history, and the conflict between brutal and ambitious thugs and a fat, comfortable, and largely helpless elite of the West.
hey, Whiskey? Um… what exactly does this have to do with the ‘Watchmen’ film. Just askin’…
By the way, I am an American Soldier and am proud of it.
That’s pretty much how I felt. The story surfs along over many intriguing ideas but there’s no pausing for any of them to really stick. The Comedian/Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Rorschach/Jackie Earle Haley seem to provide all the passion, and the rest are somewhat forgettable. The music was off and Silk Spectre/Carla Gugino’s and Nixon’s makeup was so unconvincing they were distracting. I might rent it but I don’t think I’ll see it five times like I did 300.
Whiskey is clearly responding to the comment above him.
Whiskey seems very angry. Its incredible that any discussion forum on the internet, no matter what its about, ends up being a nastily partisan spat about American politics. TIRESOME.
Jules … that’s a good point. I think we all have our ‘hot buttons’ and when they’re pressed – or even nudged – we react with passion. And that’s often the case with ideological matters. That said, I share Whiskey’s frustration on the whole ” post 9/11 unity” discussion, but a “Watchmen” critique may not be the best place for it.
But this is an open forum, so have at it! Especially since Whiskey’s comments, even if you disagree with them, were well laid out and potent.
And Overhaul — wouldn’t it have been better to cast Nixon in the shadows … or even doctored film clips … rather than hire an awful imitator with such a bad makeup job??
cftoto
Regarding Nixon, I’m not sure what the answer is (I know after seeing Frost/Nixon that this portrayal of Nixon really tripped up the momentum).
I think the Nixon is a comic-book rendered caricature. This story is satirically altering history and the concept of masked avengers. The one who stands out to me as being taken more seriously by the author, whether that’s Alan Moore or the filmmakers, is Dr. Manhattan. whiskey’s comment brought this forum discussion to a screeching halt, and that shows how the film stayed true to the source. If it was “not worth all the fuss” as toto suggests, then it wouldn’t have left people with an inkling to express the vehement, intellectual thoughts on the issues the story barely touches. I haven’t read the graphic novel, and I would like to, but this film was a brazen step toward fueling the more profound material that’s found in graphic novels and leaving the comic-book inspired blockbusters behind, at least for a certain set of filmmakers. The philosophical themes run rampant, as if the story were the first one written by an aspiring poet with no strong political ties. That’s one of the things I enjoyed about the film, that it was so nuanced because it was committed to accurately reflecting the source that it didn’t back down from going over people’s heads. Not that people wouldn’t get it upon further viewing. Intellectualist notions are what this film was satirizing, though not intentionally the whole time. Here are a few examples of what I mean.
Nixon was portrayed as a president that kept his power by capitalizing on his Vietnam victory (which was almost solely the work of Manhattan).
Rorschach is supposedly a right-wing victim turned vigilante with a nearly black-hearted virtue of justice (i.e., a sociopath).
The Nite Owl is a mild, lonely crusader who understands his limits until the shit hits the fan, when he decides it’s not worth it to hold back anymore.
All these character traits I saw are pieces of archetypes from comic books, American pop culture stories, and the sensibilities of both liberal and conservative angles. Moore himself said that he wasn’t going to see the film. Why would he need to if he knew that it would be butchered? Does an author really need to see his story in visual form to confirm something? Whether the film is completely true to the source or not is really the question that is being left in the dust here, not blockbuster comic book adaptations. I agree with one comment I’ve read that the sex scenes were overdrawn, but it wasn’t surprising given what Snyder did in 300. Again, I don’t know if these depictions were true to the source or not, but if they were I would still find the film versions overdone. The sex that Nite Owl and Silk Spectre had in the team hoverjet was another bite into the appeal of comic vixens and hunks. If there’s any leftover bombast to gain from the film, it resides in the great variety of responses that will be vocalized by more than paid critics, Watchmen fans, and forum posters.
I actually disagree with the reviewer, The dark knight was not in any way realistic ( it is centered on a multi millionaire playboy character who is insecure and happens to be a vigilante yet has never experienced any real hardships other than being an orphan), The Watchmen movie shows the darkness of society, it shows the twisted nature in man, how it is created and the urge to look for the truth through the flaws. The Dark knight is a mindless action flick compared to this, with terrorists thrown in for social appeal to the masses, Watchmen does not blatantly throw terms like “terrorism” or “terrorists” around as in The DK. The DK does not even have a proper ending as it is incomplete due to it being part of a trilogy, nor did it approach any of the ideas and subjects that were talked about or implied in the Watchmen movie. This movie actually goes into the psychology and history of these vigilantes, and it exposes the human flaws, shows how politics work, shows the roots of solidarity, the passage of death, life, time, morality, love, hypocrisy, insanity, sacrifice, the social impact on each other between people and societies problems. It is superior to the Dark Knight in every way and is the best comic book adaption to movie i’ve ever seen. EVER. Because it all feels real, the characters felt real. The issues they talked about, i could connect to. I’m not sure what movie you saw, because the level of depth and topics they cover are so real in the movie that the actual movie universe came to life. After the movie ended i was like “what happened after that? What happened the next day? “. In the dark knight you had batman biking after Joker on his motorcycle blowing half the city up. Its really a mindless movie in the end with big star hollywood actors. The Watchmen movie actually made me think afterwards. I’ve never read the graphic novel, but the movie is so good i think i’ll watch it again. Then buy and read the graphic novel.
Undertow
You do realize that the author of the movie script (i have not read the comic) is stating that the Commedian character represens you simply because you are a US Soldier. That’s right you rape women when they spurn you, you get vietnemese girls pregnant at war and when the war ends and she comes to you to do right by your baby about to be born you. Well you shoot and kill her in public and of course no one esle in the military will do anything about it. This is why Whiskey’s comment in this regard are germaine to the movie.
Jules22 – - so Whiskey is angry is he. Preston Whiskey brought the discussion to a screeching halt. Did he. I am confused. Is it not Jaqui Kubin that strarted the discussion by lamenting the movie did not do enough to “SLANDER” the Bush Adminstration. Oh well that won’t offend anyone important will it. Yes and why should I expect that there wouold be any Political discussion about this Movie. It’s not like it is a poorly written propagand for the neo progressive third wayers that run the Democratic party incorporating every tired and silly cliche about conservatives, government, the military, etc. So naturally why would the subject of Politics come up.
Oh I am sorry it is only angry an inappropriate when conservatives try to respond to you. I am sorry. I forgot. Thank you for showing me that you are truly Plato’s Chosen. That you alone decide what is right to think in the world. Thank you for confirming that conceit that I had. It justifies my opionion.
I have to respectfully disagree with you Mr. Toto. I liked this movie! Like it a lot! I thought the soundtrack fit the film’s quirky personality perfectly, and I appreciated the fact that the adaptation didn’t change the storyline to some modern day theme, like middle east terrorist, etc.
The movie is odd, but I found it truly entertaining. I didn’t even notice the insane 163 minute running time and usually, I am the first to complain when a movie goes over two hours.
I think this movie is so different than “The Dark Knight,” it’s difficult to compare the two. I enjoyed “Watchmen” a little more, simply because it was something different, something different, something unexpected (and this is appealing to me, especially with so many ho hum movies out there).
Mr. Toto?? That’s me pappy!
I, too, appreciated some of the qualities you mentioned above. It’s a wholly original piece of work … that’s something very few movies can stake a claim to these days. But I think it held too tightly to the source material … another writer/director team might have enhanced the original story, clipped away extraneous plotlines and come up with something truly inspired.
i have to respevtfully disagree with you christian. though i didn’t think the film was perfect i thought it was as close as you could come to an adaptation of the source material. most cticis that haven’t like the film have stated that it has become a prisoner to the source material and i disagree with that. i found that the fact that it faithfully sticks to the source except for the ending and a few other minor details is what works for the film. there were some sub plots missing which will most likely be in the blu-ray version of the directors cut. Anyone that has read the graphic novel will find the film a great companion to the book. ‘Watchmen can’t be compared to ‘The dark knight’ in my opinion because they are completley different films one deals with deconstructing the superhero myth as one deals with the complete opposite.
Ronn,
Thanks for your comments … not sure we’ll see eye to eye on this one. I compared “Watchmen” to “Dark Knight” for their sober view of the real world … but I thought the former used a lazy, ‘all the world is evil/dark/corrupted angle,’ while the latter showed a more accurate representation of the good and evil around us.
In other ways, the two films are markedly different. They’re also extremely ambitious, and I can never get enough of that at the movies.
As imperfect as I found “Watchmen,” it did keep the comic book bar raised high and proud.
but we can still be friends, right? for the record i thought ‘the dark knight’ was a better film but i liked watchmen mainly because i never thought the film would ever be made and if it was i thought it would be done poorly and i was pleased with the result. honestly i thought watchmen would work better as a hbo miniseries but oh well i will leave it at that.
*Beware Spoilers*
Throwing over the tea – I meant the discussion of politics, to be clear. That topic was virtually abandoned after whiskey’s comment and undertow’s reply. By the way, I disagree with the notion that this movie was solely picking on conservatives. Rorschach was a thoroughly enjoyable character, and he is supposedly an ultra-conservative. I think Alan Moore is satirizing the biased, yet self-proclaimed objective, partisan viewpoints that are so prevalent in the US. It’s also the essence of many comic books across the last 70-80 years, which Watchmen is basing its characters and alternate history on (not factually, but conceptually). At the same time, I think Moore and the film empathizes with the characters, or rather the struggle that has made each of them who they are. Isn’t that what so many superheroes are known for? The struggle that brought them to choose a life of supreme sacrifice by wielding extraordinary power? The Watchmen are much more developed than many ongoing comic book characters, emotionally and intellectually engaging…whereas Spider-man introduces us to the themes. The film was directly addressing the human fascination with power and imperfection melded into one. The Dark Knight is not comparable to this film for many reasons, but Toto, I see what you are saying about how they each have a sober view of the real world. Though I think Watchmen’s view utilizes a wild and bizarre premise to elaborate on it, and that makes it a more artistic film, especially since it was such a so-called “faithful” adaptation. A friend told me that the end in the graphic novel involved an alien attack, either fake or real I’m not sure, instead of the nuclear fallout. That may seem like a minor change, but it really isn’t if you want to call it “true to the source”. He also said the sex scene was more than what he remembered the book being. I’m also in agreement on some of the realism and depth of the story that Dr Manhattan expressed. Thanks.
Liked the review. I have to say I agree that the music was off and the makeup on Nixon and Silk Spectre was terrible. Overall it was what I expected – visually amazing but lacking much else. Some decent acting from Rorshach and the Comedian (don’t know actor’s names). The main thing that bothered me about the movie is it really failed to take the audience to the alternate reality the book sets up so well. So many little details were missing – I know, it’s a movie and can’t have everything – that really enriched the entire story. Bubastis is never explained at all; and the sex scene came off as gratuitous and unnecessary soft-core porn. I will say I am OK with the altered ending and overall the film was pretty entertaining, considering it ran almost three hours. But you are right: “The Dark Knight” it is not!
… I think an HBO miniseries would have been a great idea … frankly, that format is far more helpful to tricky novels. “Empire Falls” wasn’t a great HBO mini, but it captured the book quite well and allowed enough time to dig into the meaty themes throughout. Jamming all of “Watchmen” into an overlong movie … it just doesn’t work as well…
Preston, from what I know of Moore … he’s an equal opportunity critic (and crank, I’m guessing, which is fine). And to me, Rorschach was the whole movie … the real flawed heart of the piece. And he’s clearly a right leaner … so I don’t see the film as being ideologically strong. (although the parting shot at Reagan differed from the book and seemed unnecessary, especially given his role in the Cold War’s resolution.
And thanks for your smart, passionate comments here.