Movie Review: Watchmen. Bleah.

So I went to see Watchmen this weekend. I haven’t been expecting much from the movie and in that, at least, I was not disappointed. It just wasn’t good – I am completely and utterly over the whole “we can make this movie look frame for frame like the comic book”. It was cool the first time, maybe the second time and now it’s done. It’s like that first time you saw one of those photo realistic paintings and were like, ZOMG, that’s so cool! And then after a couple, you were like. Um. But maybe they could have just taken a photograph…

This CNN review captures a lot of what I think about Zack Snyder. For one’s career to be known for slavishly recreating comic books scenes in film, seems… well, whatever. In the end, while the movie had its moments, overall and sort of overwhelmingly for me at best it was just ok. On my scale of 0-10, I give it a 5.5. There’s probably a spoiler or three coming up, so you’re forewarned and therefor forearmed.

Let’s see… the good points. Well, Zack knows how to make a big battle look cool – I quite enjoyed the breaking into the jail scene. Standing on the shoulders of Gladiator and 300, he wields that slow mo button like a genius- it really was quite great.

The Owl mobile was cool, too.

Moving on to the not so good… the acting was mostly mediocre or maybe a little bad. Rorschach was very well cast and excellent – although, please Hollywood, please, can we stop with that stupid Batman voice? It’s completely distracting and who thinks that’s cool? If you knew someone who talked like that, you’d totally make fun of them behind their back. Also Nite Owl was quite good as well. Mostly everyone else with a reasonable role was not good.

Snyder adheres quite literally to the graphic novel and for that, as a Watchmen reader, it was interesting at times to see things in motion. But film is a different medium than comics, things work differently so it is reasonable to adapt the story to fit the medium. Look at the X-Men movies as an example – they change the canon extensively (Rogue instead of Kitty Pryde??) yet the first two were amongst the best superhero movies ever.

Even when Zack goes off script, sometimes needlessly so, it is often to the detriment of the story. For instance, when the Comedian shoots the pregnant woman, in the comic she stands there defiant like she knew it was coming. In the movie, she whimpers – Snyder weakly attempting to tug at your strings.

Also, seeing Dr. Manhattan’s junk all the time? Nobody needed that, Zack. I hope that the impending financial flop that this movie is going to be on top of the Spirit’s dismal performance will put an end to this chapter of comic book movies. Did you see it? I know the nerdosphere seems conflicted about this movie, some liking it and others not so much – where do you fall on the this great divide?

  • No need for super heroes in a bright clean city!
  • i saw batman 3 times in the theater...the most recent edition. i saw xmen too many times to even count. would i see this movie again, nope. i was so tired after the movie, that i couldn't even go out and drink beer. come on. also, here's the thing, the movie was not THAT bad but it wasn't good enough for me to see it again. also, why do people insist on making such dark (not tone, i'm talking lighting people) movies. zach attack seems to like to film in the dark and use drowned out colors because it's setting a mood of some sorts. the only mood it set for me was, i'm in the mood to get in bed and go to sleep after the movie. again, that being said, i give it a 7.5. lighting a fuse here....this movie was in the same vain as sin city for me.
  • Yes, definitely not a movie for the young'uns. Overalll, probably not a comic for the young'uns either, for some definition of young'un. :)
  • As a puritan American accustomed only to what I see on TV... it was shocking! Shocking, I say!! TV says that all ladyparts are ok, but special man parts are a no no. It's not me, it's them. :)
  • Yeah, my friend said that maybe that movie was as good as that movie was going to be - I kinda think that Terry Gilliam might have made it better - although, given that he gave up... Still, just because it may be as good as it was going to be, doesn't mean it should have been made. If you see where I'm coming from. And that's makes two who busted me for talking about blue junk, so that's it - no more junk talk from me!
  • I agree with most of your review. And even though I got the last spot in that photo I am not mad.
    Anyway, Rorshacks voice did not bother me because it fit the character. Batmans voice bothered me because it did not.

    Were you guys all that bothered by the blue penis? I think maybe you have underlining issues because it was really not distracting. At first you notice it because when is the last time you saw a glowing blue anything, but after 5 minutes, I don't know it became just a part of the character.... lol, you know what I mean. That kind of attitude toward the human body is the exact kind of thing Dr. Manhattan could not even relate to anymore so its kind of perfect.

    I guess you took that poster down huh Felix? Did I say too much?

  • Tony
    It was a great move, however, I suggest parents keeps their little ones at home for this one.
    The violence and sex/nudity, will come as a small shock... Overall it was a really good movie.
  • I have to say, I agree. I went last night and was very underwhelmed.

    Props to Snyder for doing this movie at all. Forget the complexity, he's trying to take a legendary piece of work in one media and cross it into another - he was almost doomed to fail in that you know NO ONE is going to be completely happy. It doesn't help that the author rages against adaptations of his work either.

    Enough of Dr. Manhattan's hog. We get it...he's naked. Best part about the movie was Rorschach. Kept rhyming in my head as "Horshack" every time they said it though...
blog comments powered by Disqus

Not Found

Sorry, but what you are looking for isn't here...