I will begin by clarifying (as everyone else does) whether I am a reader and a fan of the original “Watchmen” graphic novel. I am. I cannot speak for the value of Snyder's picture from the perspective of someone ignorant to its source material.
It surprises and dismays me that there are others who are familiar with Alan Moore's original and still approve wholly of Zack Snyder's film.
I can't see why.
I can say that for the most part I agree with the majority of the sentiment. Watchmen is made with passion, sensitivity and skill. Dr. Manhattan, Nite Owl II, The Comedian and Rorschach are difficult characters that all translate perfectly to the big screen. The story maintains its bizarre alternate universe timeline and the satirical cartoon look of the comic isn't compromised either. There are even a couple of things that I thought the movie did better than the book simply by being a more versatile media. Instead of merely the lyrics of familiar songs being quoted on a page, the music identified by Moore actually sounds during its respective places in the film. Rorschach's mask, instead of implied movement in a stationary drawing, is actually in a constant state of flux. The effect is simple, but surreal and engaging. The casting of Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan is also inspired, as his soft clear voice resonates with more truth and calm intelligence than something deeper or more majestic would. It's the right decision.
My issue with the film is not a matter of technique, rather with the fact that Watchmen is simply not a film. People have had a tendency to berate Alan Moore for his unconditional hatred of cinematic interpretations of his work. These people are wrong. V for Vendetta and The League of Extraordinary Gentleman were both poor adaptations completely worthy of ire, and while I thoroughly enjoyed From Hell, it wasn't exactly faithful to Moore 's original. He sees his writing as an art form and as such he has every right to be pissed off when that art is bastardized for a quick buck. For fans of an original work to ridicule the man who created it, is well… fucked.
Watchmen is a COMIC BOOK. It is written as a droll satire of other COMIC BOOKS. I understand the temptation to bring it to the big screen as there are some magnificent visuals and larger than life characters, but to change the media in which it is presented, you sacrifice the significance it had in the first place. The great Terry Gilliam tried adamantly for years to make Watchmen a movie, before he realized that it simply could not and should not be done. In order to merely tell the entire scope of the story, Gilliam figured that it would take ten hours or more. Snyder's film is already too long at 162 wholly underwhelming minutes.
And before you make the argument that the film must be judged separately from the graphic novel on which it is based, I offer this: I had considered giving the “visionary” Zack Snyder a pass; to merely appreciate what he brought to the screen. But Snyder does everything in his power to ensure that his film is intrinsically tied to the novel. He wants it to be as faithful as possible. Why would I judge it as a film, when its creators don't want me to? If Snyder had made his own artistic choices and directed something that strayed far enough from its roots to be considered its own film, I would have judged it as such. I also probably would have enjoyed it more and been more forgiving of its new easier conclusion. The movie as it stands is just like the comic, only with far less content and much fewer ideas.
A final note:
I realize that this review has gone on long enough already, but I must say that even though I warn that Watchmen is a waste of time, that there will be those who can not be dissuaded from seeing it. That's fine. I understand. Even though I had my doubts from the beginning as to this film's quality, my own curiosity compelled me to see it anyway. You will likely suffer from the same affliction.
Jason Pitt
– Canada
I have not yet read the graphic novel, so I think I was more inclined to like than someone who would be more distracted by the missing elements. And yes, I did like it. It was enjoyable enough to see a superhero movie with a suitable R-rating, and some overtly political content. So, yes I felt it was a good movie... not great, but good.
That being said, the film never really seemed as epic as it was intended, and I (even not having read Moore's novel) got the distinct impression that there was certainly something missing. It never really felt complete. As a result I feel inclined to agree with Scott's statements even though I had no prior knowledge of the work before-hand. It feels like an incomplete work, and as such perhaps should never have been manipulated into film format.
Josh Darling
– Xenuland
Dude, the guy has REMADE a film, then amde a comic book and then made another comic book... I agree the man is um, not an artist. and I'm guessing from the voice a FLAMING homosexual not that hthere is antyhing wrong with that. Hey chekc my you tube man, you ned to see my ugly face, proff that I don't hate gays and beautiful defence of my censoship. Wait I mean my beautiful defence against censorship.