Of this much, one can be certain - The Watchmen, as it exists in graphic novel form, is one of the most sophisticated pieces of comic work ever conceived. Elegant, nuanced, with a prolific voice and a genuine affection for graphic storytelling, it’s a beautiful representation of what comics can achieve. Let’s temporarily shelve the fact that The Watchmen is wrapped in the super-hero genre and how that is perceived by the American public. Truth be told, that’s just window dressing.
Written by Alan Moore in twelve chapters, the book is an examination of intricate structures, pirhouetting between Thomas Pynchon-esque frameworks and pre-established conventions from Moore’s previous Swamp Thing run (published by DC comics). The writing is beautiful and brutal, deft, ruthless.
One of the most fascinating characters in the story is Dr. Manhattan, a god-like being capable of bending matter to his will. He experiences time in a lateral fashion, as opposed to our linear one. All times - past, future, and present - are linked in his existance. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that ‘time’ is not something he experiences at all but a state of being, of existing beyond it. For Manhattan, time becomes conceptual.
For the Watchmen movie, time is a very real villian.
The film tries desperately to cling to Moore’s original content, mirroring the formulas he used to maintain the story, both thematically and technically. Unfortunately, in doing so, it has no soul, no drama.
No time.
To defend Zach Snyder, the film’s very competent director, there simply isn’t enough time in three hours. There isn’t enough time to explore Silk Spectre’s near pathological denial of her father, or the culmination of conflicting emotions when faced unavoidably with his identity. There isn’t enough time to explore Rorschach’s gracefully ugly world view and the gradual effect it has on the therapist that interviews him, the professional life he’s crafted around himself. There is no time to explore the nuanced relationship between Night Owl and Rorschach, the homosexual undertones in their relationship. No time.
Film is not the vehicle for this story. A film continues to roll forward for three passive hours of viewing. There is no time to drink in it’s dignified architecture, no panel border to pause and reflect on the tale being told, the characters it envelopes.
The Watchmen movie is an excellent effort - handsome and artistic. But as often before it, the book that spawned it resonates, the film does not.
The big question is WHO watched the Watchmen?
Watchmen, the movie, was like sex without love.
I’m only bitter because I think Snyder is a hack.
It’s still the best money can buy, right?
(I must say, I enjoyed reading Kubert’s finest disecting this sacred cow. How’s life? *g*)
Doing well, doing well. You?
Personally, I don’t believe Snyder’s a hack. I feel his remake of Dawn of the Dead was better than the original - no small feat in my eyes. I enjoyed watching 300, but it was malnourished in terms of storytelling, anorexic cinema, like watching two hours plus worth of oil paintings stacked behind a common theme.
My concern was the vehicle for this story. Conversely, after having read The Lord of the Rings, I enjoyed the movies far more than the books. Kooky.
i haven’t read the Watchmen comic series, but i can’t imagine them packing any more into one movie even if they wanted to, which is good for me, makes me feel like i got my money’s worth
Good point - you do get your money’s worth with the film, that’s for certain.
I have seen watchmen and i was not impressed by the movie at all. There was alot of advertising in belgium around it but i would rate it 5.5/10.
Thanks for your input. On a scale of ten, I’d probably only give it slightly higher than that for visual effects. But visual effects doesn’t necessarily make for a good film. Interestingly, Alan Moore, the writer of the graphic novel, made certain his name was not affiliated with the movie.