Barnes at the Movies: Watchmen

Barnes' Journal

March 6, 2009

Woke up feeling like a dog carcass that had a burst stomach. The movie theater is afraid of me. I have seen too many films. The seat aisles are extended gutters and the gutters are filled with spilt soda and dropped popcorn and when aisle is filled up, all the ushers will drown. The accumulated time, effort, drama, hype, controversy,and intrigue put into this film along with the sex, murder and fights will foam up to the director's and actors' waists. Through the movie they will shout, "Watch us!" ... and I'll look up, and whisper, "Gladly."

Watchmen is a movie that is not without controversy. The comic book (or graphic novel, if you want to sound snooty about it) came out in the 1980's and has been bandied about from studio to studio, director to director, and collecting dust in Hollywood for years. When notable director Terry Gilliam asked Watchmen author, Alan Moore, how to shoot it into a film back in the '80's, Moore bluntly and honestly answered, "I wouldn't." The trouble with merely shooting a deep, layered story was compounded with litigation regarding the movie rights to the material. Now after over 20 years, the dubbed "unfilmable" piece has been shot and ready for review.

Watchmen takes place in a dystopian 1985. Nixon is still President (he had multiple terms since the two term amendment was repealed), the formerly common sight of costumed vigilantes is cracked down by the government, and the world is on the brink of a nuclear holocaust due to the tensions between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. When a former colleague is murdered, the crazed masked vigilante Rorschach is trying to uncover who is behind the killing and the defamation of former heroes. However, there may be more to this mystery than just mere murder.

Like I do with other "based on" movies, I am going to look at the film on its own and not try not to compare it to the book. Alan Moore, who wants nothing to do with movie, would appreciate that. I will say that while the ending is different in the movie than in the written work, the meanings, aftermath, and character depictions/motivations remain intact. Picture ordering two cheeseburgers. Both have the same toppings with lettuce, tomato, onions, etc. Now imagine having ketchup on one burger and mustard on the other. That's the amount of difference between both works.

Zack Snyder, the man who did the gorgeous and gory 300, shot a beautiful looking film. The colors and CGI fit the tone and the environment. The costumes from the various periods of time (the film jumps from the '40's to '60's to '80's) were well done. Snyder's greatest strength is his ability to make anything ugly look beautiful and anything beautiful look more beautiful.

The acting was really well done. Each of the six main actors were able to flesh out their characters and provide lasting distinctions without falling prey to one dimension. The dialogue is 90% from the book which will make fanboys happy and serves credit to the original author, Moore.

Matthew Goode was the weakest performer as Ozymandias and based on the rest of the acting, that is hardly a knock. I don't really fault it to Goode too much because certain aspects of his character's personality were omitted from the script. He remains rather archetypical until the end of the film, but by the time he becomes interesting the film is over. I surprised that the movie plays close attention to the backgrounds of all the other characters, but doesn't give much or any exposition on Ozymandias alone. It sucks because I think his character is given the backseat compared to his comic book counterpart while the rest of the main mysterymen are given the full exposure treatment.

Malin Akerman properly portrays the second generation Silk Spectre/Laurie Jupiter. While she serves as eye candy, that is what her character is known for. Well, that plus mommy issues and kicking ass. She does pulls off those aspects very well and can act, so that's a win in my book.

Jeffrey Dean Morgan does a grand job as the gruff, sadistic Comedian. A less capable actor could easily fall into a violent one dimensional viewpoint in the character. However, Morgan was able to make this easily and understandably unlikeable character and turn him into a pitiful, almost sympathetic figure.

Billy Crudup, the biggest name in the film and that doesn't say much, was good as the stoic, God-like Dr. Manhattan. While Crudup's character does not really emote often and the CGI does most of the physical acting for him, the nuances in his facial expressions and subtle changes in his speech patterns help his portrayal. Crudup was aptly able to make Dr. Manhattan seen not as a cold person but an indifferent, almost naive man... that or a disinterested God.

Patrick Wilson is great as the second Nite Owl/Dan Dreiberg. He is able to be a girly, impotent pansy and is able to pull off being a badass at the same time. Now, I don't mean the Clark Kent/Superman immediate change from "aw, shucks" to "surrender, you thugs!" I mean that Wilson was able to show the nervousness of Dreiberg under the confident guise of Nite Owl even with the handicap of the Batman-esque mask and outfit. I expect to see great things out of Wilson in the future and I consider this to be a breakthrough performance for him.

Now to Jackie Earle Haley as the menacing, masked psycho Rorschach. This is Haley's most famous role since he was a kid actor in the original Bad News Bears. Much like how Mickey Rourke was Marv in Sin City, Haley is Rorschach. The build, the voice, and mannerisms all fit. The cold delivery, crazed demeanor, and the desperate emotional moments fit perfectly. Rorschach scared the crap out of me... and I couldn't help but root for him.

Fair warning to the squeamish and bashful. You will get an anatomy lesson from Watchmen. You will see naked people of both genders and a whole lot of nude Dr. Manhattan, complete with a CGI blue penis. Lots of CGI blue penis. You will also see a lot of the inner workings of the human body splattered across the walls; blood, bones, and all.

While most fanboys will complain about how this isn't page-for-page, word-for-word exactly like the book, I ask those guys, "What more can you want?" If you want something like that, get the "Watchmen Motion Comic" DVD. This is supposed to be something new and is a good homage to the source material. If anything, the movie has a ton of "Easter egg" moments that only fans of the book would understand. That would actually be one of my criticisms.

As you have read, I obviously enjoyed the film, however I do have some nit-picking. While I do like the "Easter egg" moments in the film, I think that those who haven't read the book may get lost in some moments. The film opens with the Minutemen (the original superheroes from the '40's) with their fates represented through various short, dialogue-less scenes. While it's nice for the die-hard fans, the regular viewing public might be lost in regards to who is who and after the film wonder "What's the point of seeing those guys? They didn't really effect most of the story or the ending."

Also, while I enjoyed the long, single character focused scenes because it is just like the comic and I am a die-hard fan, some may think that it slows down the overall story. Snyder did a good job smoothly transitioning between the main arc and the character exposition without it turning into "Let's pause for a moment and learn more about Dr. Manhattan." That being said, some who don't like to sit very long might think it adds unnecessary bulk to its near 3 hour runtime. This is the main reason (among others) that I thought Watchmen should have been an HBO miniseries instead of movie in order to view it smaller, distinct bites.

My biggest complaint is the soundtrack. While some songs work, many seem totally out of place and made me laugh at certain scenes in which laughter wasn't the goal. Dan and Laurie go to dinner with "99 Red Balloons" in the background. Rorschach and Nite Owl traveling to the arctic to Jimi Hendrix's "All Around the Watchtower" really perplexed me. So, the scene is in the 1980's featuring a song popular in the 1960's when earlier in the film there was a scene during the Vietnam War which didn't feature any '60's music. The songs themselves aren't bad (I kinda want to buy the soundtrack), but it really takes you out of the film. It's like the movie decided to put on the local rock radio station on in the background of each scene.

So in the end, Watchmen is worth watching. I recommend anybody to watch it, unless you are disinterested based on what I wrote. Just don't expect it to be a mainstream juggernaut like The Dark Knight. Who watches the Watchmen? You should.