Movie Review/Essay: Watchmen

I’m going to get this out of the way: this review will be long. Don’t like it? Go somewhere else. The webs are a vast place with quick, simple reads.

Personally, I’m just relieved to have a movie worth writing something about. This has been a weak year for movies so far. There have been a few decent movies, like Taken, and …umm…yeah. That’s all I can think of. And really, Taken was a popcorn version of the far superior Man On Fire.

I’ll begin with three important observations regarding Watchmen the film:

First, Watchmen is based on a graphic novel (read: long comic book) from 1986. It was included on Time’s top 100 Novels of the 20th century, a fact the filmmakers smartly bring to the forefront of every interview regarding the film. So what, you say? It means that there is some audience outside the comic-book-nerd crown that has recognized Watchmen as something of literary or artistic value.
Second, Watchmen has taken 24 years to make it to the big screen, although the rights to make it were sold shortly after its literary release. The bulk of that time was spent trying to make various iterations of the film, with armies of people attempting to make what has long been described as ‘the un-filmable film;’ more on that later.
Third, Watchmen was directed by Zack Snyder, whose two previous films, Dawn of the Dead and 300, received varying reviews by critics and viewers, but are unquestionably the works of someone who is passionate and respectful of his source material, whether remaking a film or translating a graphic novel to film.

Now, what is the point of mentioning these facts? They are the primary reasons that drew me to watch the film. Note how the fact that I actually read the graphic novel is not a reason I wanted to see the film; that is entirely intentional.

I had never heard of Watchmen until Snyder announced it as his next project after 300. All of the sudden, a few fans became very vocal about how incredible Watchmen was, followed by a vast army of pseudo-fans: people who had never heard of it or perhaps simply had not had any kind of memorable experience with it, but nonetheless felt compelled to suddenly agree that it was an epic project that needed making. I don’t know if it was Snyder’s astounding (and unexpected) success with 300 or the confirmation of thousands of these web-mobilized pseudo-fans, but suddenly, Watchmen was, without question, The Most Important Movie On The Distant Horizon for anyone who enjoyed comic book movies, a genre that received a stunning dose of credibility with the release of The Dark Knight.

Anyway, I was perplexed by the sudden emergence of this cult of Watchmen and felt that perhaps I had missed something in my youth. My mother absolutely banned anything comic book related while I was growing up, so I wasn’t too surprised to have missed its release. So I dutifully went to Borders and got myself a copy of Watchmen. Then I read it. Then I mostly forgot about it. In fact, I was more intrigued by the author, Alan Moore, who is some kind of a reclusive genius a-hole.
A genius because he almost single-handedly transformed comic books from the kind of trashy, throw-away entertainment my mom believes it to be, into a genuine art; a form of literature that more than holds its own against novels, poetry, painting, and film (possibly because it contains elements of all four other art forms.) Alan Moore wrote V For Vendetta, The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell, and various other comics, including an important interpretation of the Batman legend (The Killing Joke), which served as a supplemental inspiration for The Dark Knight.
Moore is an a-hole because he absolutely despises any attempts to translate his works into film, actively criticizing all such efforts and publicly disparaging them without first seeing the results. But he readily took his check for selling the rights.
Moore’s story intrigued me because it was him who apparently first said that Watchmen was un-filmable. He believed that he had created a unique story that was particularly suited to the graphic novel form, and would be impossible to transliterate to any other form. Watchmen was the graphic novel that defined graphic novels as art. And he would never support any effort that might compromise or disparage his singular achievement.
And thus began 20+ years of struggling to bring Watchmen to the screen. And now, it is here.

Here’s the meat of my review, in as simple a way as I can put it:

Watchmen the story takes place in 1985 and is about a disbanded group of superheroes (the ‘Watchmen’) who reconnect after one of their own is murdered and try to figure out if it was simply a random killing, an organized effort against the retired ‘masks’, or part of a much larger conspiracy against civilization itself.
Watchmen the graphic novel a stunningly dense, layered story, in which an alternate version of America’s history (America won the Vietnam war, Richard Nixon is serving a fourth term, etc.) serves as the backdrop for a character study of what, exactly, drove a diverse group of people to enter the career of ‘masked adventurer’. The intricate, brilliantly constructed psychoses of the characters are matched only by the fascinating way in which they are presented amidst a story that is equally complex. The experience of reading through once was fascinating and tiring; however, I only managed one reading before the film was released. Blame Left 4 Dead and Gears of War 2.
Watchmen the film is a stunning realization of the graphic novel, capturing the look and feel of the entire source material in every way…until the ending, which was well-adapted for a more cinematic experience but completely neutered the logical brilliance of the graphic novel.

Source adaptation is a tricky business, with most attempts failing miserably. In my opinion, the ultimate film adaptation is still The Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson’s trilogy maintained the core sense of the novel while not feeling particularly enslaved to the exact details of the novel. Jackson realized that Tom Bombadil would have detracted from the movie experience, as well as a long, protracted battle to reclaim the Shire after the ring was destroyed. On the other end of the scale are the first two Harry Potter novels, though I would argue that the final book betrayed the series more than any film could. The first two HP novels were absolutely slavish to the books, not deviating in any way and finally producing two of the most boring ‘fantasy’ films ever made; there was clearly no imagination beyond what the book contained.
Watchmen is somewhere in between, leaning toward The Lord of the Rings, but suffering to some degree from the same slavish adherence to the novel as the first two Harry Potters. Snyder was under phenomenal pressure from fans to stay faithful to the graphic novel, who generally have become frustrated and disillusioned by significant departures from comic book source material (from Judge Dredd to Catwoman to any of the Punisher films.) The problem with adapting a graphic novel is that every single scene is already laid out visually within the frames of the comic. The fans think they know exactly how the film should look. A novel is much more individually adaptable; nobody can actually prove what a hobbit looks like: Peter Jackson’s interpretation could be exactly what Tolkien had in mind.
With 300, Snyder managed to stay faithful to the novel while changing significant visual and story elements; in fact, he manufactured a third of the movie’s narrative simply because the source material and the historical event it was based on were extremely skimpy on narrative detail. So Snyder earned a pass, though some hardcore fans complained viciously.
But Watchmen was a whole different beast. Instead of a source that gave tremendous latitude for visual interpretation (The Lord of the Rings,) or characters and a narrative lacking in literary substance (300,) Watchmen is the holy grail of graphic novels, with visuals, characters, and narrative to rival any other art form.

Personally, I believe Snyder was the perfect choice to make Watchmen. Dawn of the Dead and 300 clearly proved he had the flair for visuals and the necessary mastery of special effects. They also demonstrated considerable ability to incorporate some emotional and narrative depth into genre films that typically don’t possess either (I openly admit, zombie movies don’t usually have ‘plots’ or ‘characterization’.) Both of Snyder’s previous adaptations were excellent by most standards, including my own (which is, incidentally, the only one that mattered to me.)

Here are the important things that Snyder got right:
1. The story – he distilled the layered and multiple stories of the original novel into a coherent, cinematically presentable narrative. This is Snyder’s most important and remarkable accomplishment. The script that eventually made it to the screen contained a great deal of the original source material; but in reality, only enough that follow the through-line of the central murder mystery. Some significant elements were wisely eliminated while others were reduced to concise, functional versions of their longer sources.
2. The setting and costumes – Snyder wisely chose to retain the setting of 1985, when the Cold War was at its peak. A great deal of the moral center of the story rests on the unique and terrifying backdrop of the American/USSR nuclear arms race. To change the time would have distorted the narrative itself and severely negated one of the main characters, Dr. Manhatten. Yet thankfully, Snyder updated most of the costumes. Some of them are still a little goofy, but they could have been distractingly horrifying. Of course, Dr. Manhatten’s ‘costume’ was still distractingly horrifying, but for distinctly unique reasons…
3. Rorschach – Snyder’s casting of the main ‘hero’ was inspired and a critical success to me since he is my favorite character. He is the only member of the Watchmen still actively fighting crime as the film begins. The opening death of The Comedian compels Rorschach to investigate his murder to its absolute conclusion, despite not knowing just how far that path will go. The actor who portrays Roschach has the voice I imagined when I read the comic, and flawlessly looked the part, both in and out of the mask. I definitely identified with his uncompromising sense of morality, and admired his ‘aggressive’ pursuit of justice, legality be damned. So many aspects of this character are awesome, it’s impossible to really describe them.
4. Dr. Manhatten – after getting over his one glowing flaw (later), I realized during my second viewing that this character serves as the spiritual and philosophical center of the film. Manahtten is, in fact, the only character in Watchmen who has any super powers at all: the ability to alter the physical world in any way, bound only by his own knowledge and intelligence. His seemingly god-like power is the literal and philosophical McGuffin at the center of the story, though you don’t realize it right away. I also realized that Manhattan is the only character that truly discovers a sense of humanity during the film, and the scene where he describes that experience was entrancing, as was his retelling of how he acquired his powers. Both scenes are masterpieces of filmmaking and fascinating to watch and absorb; in my opinion, both scenes alone justified the experience of the film.
5. The pacing – comic book movies often have a real problem with pacing, and that is often because they are conceived of as vehicles for special-effects-laden action scenes. Blade was a perfect example of this: the film opened with a spectacular, atmospheric action scene that promised an incredible film; it was followed with 110 more minutes of exposition and flat, lethargic fight scenes. Watchmen’s action scenes are not the focal point of the film. The characters are. So the time I spent listening to them and observing their interactions with each other was more compelling than the brief, excellent action scenes. The movie never felt slow or like it was leaving out too much.

Now, having pointed out some things I really liked, there were a few that I really didn’t like:
1. The Big Blue Dong, or What Needs To Stay Versus What Can Go – Snyder spent obvious time deciding exactly what should and shouldn’t stay in the film from the novel. By his own admission (and in part to get Warner Brothers to allow him his own version of the film,) his guiding principle was “If it was in the graphic novel, it must be in the film.” I have no problem with that, but as soon as you compromise that at all, then you esoterically define a line between what you will and will not include; what you do and don’t change. In fact, every adaptation must make this compromise. The only difference is where the line is drawn. I simply disagree with where this line was drawn.
My complaint is that after Snyder made the decision to make changes, most notably the fundamentally different ending, he failed to make some seemingly minor but ultimately important changes. And best example is Dr. Manhatten’s man-junk all over the place. If there is a scene with Manhatten, chances are you’re gonna see his big blue dong (if you’ve seen trailers, Manhatten is the guy that glows blue and doesn’t wear clothes – a ‘really subtle’ reference to his disconnect from humanity is his eschewing of such things as pants.) Yes, this is true to the graphic novel. But no, I didn’t enjoy that particular aspect of the book. And hell no, I didn’t need to see it so often during the film; I don’t go to movies for dudity. And aside from the on-going distraction throughout the film, it actually detracted from the climax of the film (really, no pun intended…) As the final scenes is unfolded, the entire audience was ripped out of the film-going experience and started laughing when, yet again, Mini-Manhatten made his appearance. Maybe it worked for some in the graphic novel, but based on audience reactions, the film suffered. Would it really have been a significant compromise to raise the camera angle a couple inches? Literally every single person I’ve talked to that saw the movie complains of this one thing every time, with few, if any, other complaints. And they all, universally, state that they will probably never see the movie again for that reason.
The problem of what to include and what not to include basically describes all of my problems with the film, for example:
2. The Grit – Watchmen is a gritty film, based on gritty novel. I knew going into the film that Snyder had not compromised on the violence, language, or sexuality. Now I’ve seen my share of violent films, and some of them have been pretty gory. Watchmen, by no means, exceeds some movies I’ve seen and enjoyed. The problem is that the few scenes of extraordinarily gory violence are so overwhelming, that it detracts from the continuity of the viewing experience.
For example, two of my favorite films, Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan, contain scenes of violence similar in graphic detail to Watchmen. But those films provide a context for the violence that makes it seem, oddly enough, very fitting. In fact, both films would be significantly impaired in conveying their message should the violence be removed or minimized. But Watchmen is not a movie whose narrative context is defined solely by violence. More exactly, I found that the level of gore that punctuated certain scenes did not fit the tone of the characters. It seems odd that these superheroes, particularly Nite Owl II, who espouse and typically live high moral ideals, seem unflinching in their willingness to inflict such horrific injuries; they are neither hesitant to inflict nor seem affected by the results of their actions. And the problem is not the violence itself, but the extremely graphic nature in which it is presented. It really took me out of the film several times, and I’m a relatively tolerant person. Again, the methodical inclusion of such graphic gore seemed counter-productive to the tone and continuity of the film.
3. The sexuality – there were a couple sex scenes that were particularly graphic and utterly superfluous to the story. I find depictions of sexuality in films are usually just excuses to try and appeal to an audience’s carnal nature and rarely (if ever) add any significant character development. I don’t enjoy the experience of being manipulated in films, whether it’s through cliché-induced grief or induced titillation.
4. The ending – I won’t spoil the ending, but I was really intrigued by its execution. On one hand, the fates of all the characters and the world are exactly the same as the novel. But on the other hand, during the climax of the narrative, the manner in which these characters get to their final destination is radically different. And the changes in that journey fundamentally negate the logic and brilliance of the graphic novel’s morality, particularly relating to the character of Adrien Veidt. Adrien is, as noted in the book and film, the smartest man in the world. But the alternate ending utterly negates this fact by introducing logical flaws that are too painfully obvious to anyone familiar with the novel.
And there’s the rub. Everyone I spoke to who had not read the novel thought the ending was great. And I would heartily agree that the new ending is far more cinematically presentable. But knowing how the original source material was neutered was painful to see. I didn’t hate the movie because of it, but I definitely left thinking “Why did Snyder need scene after scene of blue glowing man-junk from the novel but felt compelled to change the whole ending?”
Hurm, indeed…

Now, why did I think Watchmen was worth watching? I love getting out of a movie and having enough to think about that I have to talk to someone else that has seen the movie also. After seeing Watchmen, I talked to my buddy Ken who had seen it in Maryland at the same time. We talked about the good and the bad (see above—we pretty much agreed on most points,) we were both intrigued by the various messages the film presents. Among the most interesting ideas in the movie was contemplating what it would really take to save the entire world from itself. The characters of Watchmen are all doing what they think is best to save people and fight evil; that is, after all, what heroes do. But despite their disparate approaches to this universal problem, all of their efforts were of questionable effect. In fact, some of their efforts actually contributed to the chaotic downward spiral that civilization found itself in. So despite the impressive machinations of Adrien Veidt, the god-like powers of Dr. Manhatten, and the uncompromising morality of Rorschach, what does it really take to save a world that is so seemingly focused on destroying itself?
Ken and I both tossed around the various practicalities of such a situation, which is particularly interesting in the post-9/11 world where the U.S. is embroiled in a real Global War on Terrorism. The parallels between the GWOT and Watchmen’s fictional storyline of heated U.S./U.S.S.R. nuclear tensions are clear. On one hand, fighting evil is a moral imperative; just ask any WWII veteran. But on the other had, on a long enough timeline, violence rarely begets anything but more violence; just ask any Israeli or Palestinian. So what would it really take to unite all of mankind? What would it take to overcome all national, social, racial, economic, and philosophical differences to unite with respect for differences, but without the animosity we see today? Does anybody in the world realistically think that this can occur by any means that any human being can orchestrate; or even any group of humans guided by nothing more than their own belief in humanity itself?
The fact is that I don’t think any efforts of mankind can ever completely overcome these obstacles. I think that limited human wisdom combined with a relatively short lifespan literally make it impossible that any mortal will overcome these monumental issues and bring about the tolerant utopian future of humanity. Based on my own Christian religious beliefs, I think that these problems can only be truly overcome through the unifying teachings of the Savior himself, and only under his direct guidance. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only truly elevating factor that I believe can unify all of mankind. Naturally, it is also one of the most commonly manipulated philosophies in the history of the world; a phenomenal amount of evil has been done in the name of Christianity over the last 2000 years. Nonetheless, I still absolutely believe in its capacity to make the world a much better place as people learn and apply His teachings.

I love the fact that this graphic-novel-turned-film actually provided the context and framework for a serious discussion.

So in the end, I really did enjoy and appreciate the film. It made me think, it was original in its narrative, and stunning in its execution. Of Snyder’s three films to date, Watchmen is by far the most complex and impressive achievement, but also the one I’m least likely to be watching frequently in the future. I’ll never stop watching zombie movies or war movies (Dawn of the Dead and 300) but I’ll always pause and question whether I really want to watch another 3 hours of Dr. Manhatten’s junk.
And finally, if you hadn’t figured it out, I probably would not recommend this movie to many people because of the extremely graphic violence, gratuitous dudity, and extraneous sexuality.