Watchmen
posted February 26, 2009 5:13 PM
Love it or hate it, Watchmen is worth seeing
Captain America punched Hitler on a comic book cover. Superman threatened the Fuhrer with a "strictly non-Aryan sock on your jaw." That's as safely political as our spandex heroes get, which is why it's a shock here to see Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) and the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan, a charmer, here meaty and lethal) lay waste to a field of Viet Cong, incinerating and blasting them one terrified fighter at a time. Audiences will flock to this cynical juggernaut—some to love it, some to try to hate it—and all will leave feeling they've had An Experience.
In Watchmen history, the original gang of superhero vigilantes were World War II celebrities. Silhouette (Apollonia Vanova) strode proudly through the ticker tape parades to grab a cute nurse and bend her backwards with a kiss. But that was the last moment when war was morally black and white; when the Watchmen—and America—got mired down in the fear of the ’50s and the tumult of the ’60s, the country and its saviors suffered. This is a parallel America where after the hippie stuck a daisy in the soldier's rifle, he pulled the trigger. Silhouette and her nurse were murdered in a lesbian hate crime, perky Silk Spectre (Carla Gugino) succumbed to booze and men, and when this movie opens in 1985, the Comedian has just been tossed out of a window by a mysterious blackhooded man.
The next real plot point doesn't happen for an hour. Like Silk Spectre's boozy regrets, this is a story that would rather study the golden past than involve itself in the grim future. After ‘Nam, Comedian and Rorshach (Jackie Earle Haley, fantastic) went rogue, punishing man's wickedness with the wrath of a thousand Travis Bickles, and making superhero vigilantes as unpopular as Batman at the end of The Dark Knight. The next generation of Watchmen has taken off its rubber suits and capes and gone underground in plain sight; they're Clark Kent with the tights packed in storage. Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) is a brilliant billionaire, Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson) has packed on the pounds and the new Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman), daughter of the original, is in a dysfunctional relationship with boyfriend Dr. Manhattan, who, since the accident that made him an atomic god, has increasingly grown distant from humanity, walking through the real world "like mist," she gripes.
Dr. Manhattan's best moments are when he fumbles for the pretense of human emotions. Aware that Silk Spectre suspects he's fallen out of love with her and mankind, he splits himself into three doppelgangers and sends two into her bedroom for a threesome while the last piece of him continues work on his top secret invention. (And he's caught off-guard by her anger.) He's the heartless heart of the Watchmen myth; like his fellow superheroes, humanity is beneath him. Most see people as either slimy or small—even Nite Owl and Silk Spectre, the fluffiest, prettiest pair, can joke about a man's fatal plummet down an elevator shaft like an old college prank. For anyone who ever wondered why Superman insists on saving every person in peril, Alan Moore's bracing original characters and story also ask 'Why bother?'
Inadvertently, director Zack Snyder underscores his point. Snyder can't capture a sentimental human emotion—like Dr. Manhattan, ultimately we, too, don't feel a thing for these humans with their loud talk shows and continued love for President Nixon, here in his fifth term in office. Dr. Manhattan's solution is to teleport to Mars, ‘a place humanity couldn't improve,’ he declares. ‘They'd only soil it with oil pipelines and strip malls,’ he notes. We're mostly stuck on Earth, cringing at Snyder's attempt to form a great romance between Silk Spectre and Nite Owl. Half of the cast can't act and worse, must wrestle with dialogue from David Hayter and Alex Tse's adaptation that proves that lines that look deep in a text box are too flat for film. (Sample exchange: "What happened to the American Dream?" "It came true.")
Snyder is lousy at directing actors, however, he's tremendous at directing action. When even smart directors like Paul Greengrass have succumbed to breakneck editing, Snyder knows the power and awe of patience. In 300, we watched the beautiful cruelty of a spear soaring through the air and into a man's chest, or a hapless Persian somersaulting as his leg is severed from his body. The Comedian's deadly opening sequence is a masterpiece of fight choreography with the two brawlers crumpling furniture as easily as sugar sheets under their strong fists, and when the Comedian is ultimately tossed out of a window, the glass crackles and floats around him like he's in a snow globe.
Snyder doesn't chop; he pans. He's incredibly—but not stupidly—violent. Pineapple Express had obvious heroes, but the body count in that film feels perverse. Those deaths are entertainment. Watchmen goes beyond nameless bullet-riddled victims. A pregnant woman is shot in the belly. Two dogs fight over the leg of a dead six-year-old girl, still clad in a ruffled sock. But Snyder isn't using death for cheap thrills; we're meant to feel revulsion and despair. There are no fun fights. When our semi-protagonists battle in mere self-defense, the loud whiplash snap of each shattered bone makes us uneasy. Even a scene in which the Comedian batters and attempts to rape the original Silk Spectre both flouts and indicts misogyny. Taking in her garter belt and miniskirt, he tells her she dresses like she wants it, and we flush with guilt that it's us readers who've mandated skimpy outfits for all female heroes.
Watchmen is gunning for a scene in which every character—and the audience—is forced to question their own morality in a climax where the "good" choice and the "bad" choice might both result in the deaths of millions. In that moment, we ache for a character we once found loathsome, and find the qualities we thought were just to instead be cold and unsparing. There's been a lot of sour fanboy grumbling about this decade's need to put our superheroes on the therapist's couch. While Watchmen shares a common tone with these reworked comic book psychodramas, its focus is political not personal. It's knowing without being ironic, using music to make wry commentary satirizing its own seriousness, but never once allowing the actors to wink or mug. It won't please everyone, but what it does right outweighs what it does wrong, and if I was Dr. Manhattan, I would calculate its strengths and judge it a success.
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Cast: Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley, Carla Gugino, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Malin Akerman, Billy Crudup and Matthew Goode
Director: Zack Snyder
Writer: David Hayter and Alex Tse
Producers: Lawrence Gordon, Lloyd Levin and Deborah Snyder
Genre: Action/Drama
Rating: Rated R for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language.
Running time: 162 min.
Release date: March 6, 2009
38 Comments
Leave a comment
zxzx said:
xz
February 27, 2009 9:15 AM
JaysQ said:
I know it wont be pleasing to everyone, but it's still going to leave a big impact on the genre itself for some time to come.
http://fandom-film-review.blogspot.com
February 28, 2009 1:36 AM
MrPeepers said:
Whatever the quality of the movie, you wrote the hell out of that.
February 28, 2009 3:08 AM
chstr said:
cant w8 2 watch it
March 1, 2009 8:21 AM
DocM said:
Might be too real for some people, and I do mean real.
I've seen/heard 'first responders' cynically joke about their charges and how they 'got there', so even real 'heroes' have a bit of Watchmen-think in them.
Have also have seen situations one could define as no-win scenarios....Kobayashi Maru Scenarios if you will....where all options have major downsides.
March 1, 2009 7:15 PM
Manster said:
Watchmen is a film definatley worth seeing. The Graphic Novel was great. The movie looks great. It's a new type of super hero movie. GO SEE IT!
March 2, 2009 1:24 PM
Mike said:
I agree with MrPeepers - that was an excellent review.
March 2, 2009 8:53 PM
Brandon Castro said:
You're a ****ing idiot. Not because you wrote a negative review, but because you've clearly never read the graphic novel. Alan Moore may have been right when he said that a graphic novel can never be a movie- and vice versa, if done properly, for they're made for their respective mediums, but claiming that the text is "Too flat for film" makes you sound like a condescending closed minded cunt. Let me guess, video games are the root of all evil and only consist of plots about killing aliens (Deus Ex and Legend of Zelda never existed). graphic novels can only be about superheroes (V for Vendetta, Persepolis, and Pride of Baghdad don't exist). That correct?
March 3, 2009 12:33 PM
Chase said:
Seems pretty clear: Watchmen may have some flaws as an adaptation but should still be a stunning moviegoing experience, and Brandon Castro is a pathetic jackass who's never gotten laid (I'd feel sorry for her if you had).
March 3, 2009 2:55 PM
Guess. said:
Elaborate on what lead you to that conclusion. An opinionated response? Last time I checked having an opinion and expressing it through any medium- including the internet, doesn't make one a "pathetic jackass" or a virgin. Hell, in fact I think it would make me a little less pathetic, considering I'm not a ****ing pussy who's beliefs consist of "Oh- well I can accept that that's okay."
"Yeah, that's good."
"It's a great movie. It's an okay adaptation"
Go back to jerking off over your copy of the 300 DVD and Halo 3 special edition.
March 4, 2009 3:56 PM
MrPeepers said:
Mr Castro: Alan Moore doesn't use the term 'graphic novel' - he calls them comic books
March 4, 2009 11:43 PM
MrPeepers said:
. . . and G. I. Joe is a doll. Live with it.
March 4, 2009 11:45 PM
Nobloodnofoul said:
WOW brandon man you are unreal. Calling someone a ****ing pussy bcuz they have an opinion is screwed up. So i wont do anything like that ill just say u need to sit down and rethink ur WHOLE life and ur morals.....
March 6, 2009 3:28 PM
Bdoug said:
I haven't seen the movie; nor read the novel but, I am excited to watch it in theaters or was before I began reading all the reviews. My question is, is the movie worth watching and or should I read the novel first?
March 7, 2009 1:44 AM
@ said:
salam bar to ey banoye pak daman man yozasifam banoye man
March 7, 2009 5:10 AM
jdrum said:
Wow, Mr. Brandon Castro -- You call a female reviewer whose review you disagree with the c word... And remind us that misogyny is alive and well in our world. Thanks for providing feminists with yet another example of why we must continue to fight. Oh, and maybe later we can actually have an intelligent conversation about the movie... just not with you in the room.
March 7, 2009 2:27 PM
sled said:
Stern wannabe
March 8, 2009 9:03 AM
AmericaMom said:
This was the most boring movie I have ever seen. It was the biggest waste of $13 I have ever spent. I thought there would be action, excitement, maybe even some explanation of how these people, aside from Dr. Manhattan, obtained "super" powers. Instead we got an incredibly corny and disjointed story that included attempted rape, homosexuality, child abuse, bullying, alcoholism, violence, gratuitous sex and nudity with no real substance. Do not waste your money on this snoozefest.
March 9, 2009 8:58 AM
pdx'r said:
Just pleeeeease do not bring the kids to this one. Some parents brought their 5 year old boy to our showing... and never left despite all the goings on. It's not Spiderman, folks.
March 9, 2009 3:34 PM
Danny Ocean said:
Dear Dr. Manhattan:
Please. Please, for the love of god and all things holy... put on some god damn pants!
March 9, 2009 9:13 PM
ahmedxfire said:
this film seems good
waiting watch the film>>>>>>>>>>
March 10, 2009 3:25 AM
RAJ said:
"GOD HELP US ALL!"But it looked like GOD HELP THE MOVIE!Horribly made and terribly acted, I wonder why i spent money on this.But hey those marketeers were smart with their watchmen trailers which managed to CONVINCE US ALL ITS GOOD.Seemed so cool yet so bad.
This is one different SuperHero Movie thats for sure.But I was so disappointed with the horrible storyline and the naked blue man - DR Manhattan.
I dont blame the actors for it .I think they are great but I guess its their script and what they are told to do to act that makes it very difficult to convince their actions.
I mean common,what happened to good scripts?I am not surprised the creator of the graphic novel did not want to see it.
DOnt say i didnt warn you.If you like the comic you may like the movie but if you have no idea of the comic then,....hmmm....well, I cant help you on that can I?
March 10, 2009 9:06 PM
V said:
I really wanted to enjoy this movie and went looking forward to the two and a half hours in the cinema.
The movie started well and then I rapidly got bored, the characters where flat, the script terrible, some nice movie effects but even that didnt help a pretty boring film.
I walked out feeling like that the movie tried to be a gritty adult graphic novel, but felt that it failed and was just a bad kids comic book story with some sleeze and a few graphic scenes to make seem like it was for adults.
I would recommend this film for people who have absolutly nothing else to do with there lives and have watched everything else in the cinema.
March 11, 2009 11:13 AM
Anon said:
I saw this movie the Friday it opened and generally enjoyed it. I find it interesting that most reviews are either "loved it" or "hated it." I, personally, would say it was very good, though not great, and certainly not awful.
Visually, I thought it was great. And though it was slow at times, I definitely found it entertaining overall.
The movie did contain very adult content, but that's why it was rated R. Also, we see the nude female form all the time- I don't think it's really such a big deal to see a penis.
And as far as the name calling in these comment postings goes, I find it to be really crass.
March 11, 2009 10:34 PM
andy said:
this film is ****ing
March 12, 2009 1:57 PM
Anonymous said:
im need watch movi
March 12, 2009 4:12 PM
New to the genre said:
I watched this movie, truly wanting to hate it. I wanted to go to my pretentious graphic novel-loving friends and tell them that this movie was just one more example of how lame it is to explore adult themes in mediums intended for children. Truly important, affecting stories, after all, only appear in 1,000 page, densely-packed novels with titles like "Finnegan's Wake," right?
Boy, was I wrong! This movie was really terrific. As I had never read the comic book (I am reading it now, though!), I had no idea what to expect. I went in thinking that it would probably be some kind of bad Batman ripoff, an expectation based solely on the appearance of the Nite Owl's costume, which I had seen in the movie trailer.
Generally speaking, the above review is right on the mark. The acting was sometimes bad (especially Malik Ackerman as Silk Spectre) and the dialogue sometimes sounded forced. But, these very minor deficiencies aside, this movie has something that too, too many movies are overtly missing these days: It had an idea.
I will not go into the intricacies of the plot - and there are many of them - as some reading this review may not have seen the film yet. Suffice it to say that the movie asks a singular question (i.e. Do the ends ever justify the means?) and provides clear and lucid examples of just why the answer to that question might not be as simple as one would think.
The film also takes a stark look at human nature and the motivations that lead everyone - mortal, immortal, and superhero alike - to behave in ways that both conform with and violate our sense of morality. Right and wrong seem to be diametrically opposed concepts; but, this movie asks us to look more closely and to realize that, sometimes, the two are inextricably intertwined and we have no choice but to do what's right, regardless of what we feel is wrong.
This is not a mindless two-and-a-half hours at the theatre. Those who go in for a simple action flick are going to be mildly entertained, but ultimately disappointed. Those who are willing to open themselves to the ideas presented in the movie and, more importantly, to honestly consider the questions involved, are in for a genuinely rewarding experience.
March 14, 2009 12:01 AM
Bdoug said:
I just watched the movie and I loved it. I thought that it had enough action to keep me satisfied, and like "new to the genre" said has a much deeper message. One thing I didn't totally understand is do all the super heroes,"Dr. Manhattan excluded" have powers or do they just Know really good karate? Overall, I really enjoyed the movie and can't wait for it to come out on DVD.
March 14, 2009 1:54 AM
partha said:
'one must see', if u haven't plz see it baby
March 20, 2009 9:20 AM
moodoo said:
if lots and lots of blue man junk is your thing then you will dig the movie
March 23, 2009 8:34 AM
hadi said:
love to movie
March 25, 2009 7:43 PM
Mr. Smith said:
Life is better since watchman, period.
April 3, 2009 12:19 PM
Spiff said:
I don't know how anyone can watch this movie and not see it is the worst kind of bad. Bad can be forgiven and then dismissed when there was never any hope for it to be good, but "Watchmen" had the potential to be better than "The Dark Knight" but in it's current form I'd have to say the third Spider-Man and X-Men movies are better, and that's coming from someone who loathes Brett Ratner to no end. Snyder is purely an action director and "Watchmen" needed someone like Nolan who can deliver a gripping action sequence with a thoroughly gripping story with complicated moral choices and implications. Snyder can't do that. He couldn't even shoot the action sequences without ripping himself off. I've never read the comic, and though I want to, I don't need to in order to tell this adaptation does not do it justice. Snyder spent so much time in the past the story did gain any momentum until the end, and even that could have been done better with a more graphic portrayal. As it stands now "Watchmen" limps along supported by nothing other than Rorshach's gripping character and disturbing narrative until the climax comes and the flashbacks end.
April 4, 2009 2:39 PM
Mitchell Vasallo said:
I'm a comic book movie fanatic. And I honestly didn't think sex scenes were necessary for this film. And as a guy I didn't want to see a blue genital in the movie. I liked it on how it was character driven. Showed why they became the way they were. The effects were really good. I just felt that this kind of movie can't be a franchise type of movie. Watchmen was a one time deal. If they made a sequel it would be really disappointing and pointless. So to sum it all up. Great eye candy flick, great origin type of introductions. Just not a flick to brag about for years to come.
April 17, 2009 1:43 AM
edward cullen said:
i think this is a good movie,, dont hesitate,, just watch it,, then you'll know the quality,,
April 18, 2009 6:59 AM
sonypinto said:
This is a detailed well written article on movie rental. It would be interesting to know how today's customers view this business. I, for one, have used Seventy mm and I can tell you that their service sucks. I am now not so inclined to try out any other rental service.
http://justnewmovies.com
April 26, 2009 11:11 PM
muber said:
Snyder doesn't chop; he pans. He's incredibly—but not stupidly—violent. Pineapple Express had obvious heroes, but the body count in that film feels perverse. Those deaths are entertainment. Watchmen goes beyond nameless bullet-riddled victims. A pregnant woman is shot in the belly. Two dogs fight over the leg of a dead six-year-old girl, still clad in a ruffled sock. But Snyder isn't using death for cheap thrills; we're meant to feel revulsion and despair. There are post no fun fights. When our semi-protagonists battle in mere self-defense, the loud whiplash snap of each shattered bone makes us uneasy. Even a scene in which the Comedian batters and attempts to rape the original Silk Spectre both flouts and indicts misogyny. Taking in her garter belt and miniskirt
June 18, 2009 8:19 PM
blooker said:
too much sausage!
January 15, 2010 10:02 PM