Watchmen (Zack Snyder, 2009)

[teddyleevin]

I've been avoiding this. I really liked the book. But, I absolutely hated everything Zack Snyder directed before this. Then I saw the trailers for Watchmen, plus 5 minutes of clips online. It looks like straight-to-DVD crap. Now...the important thing is, will the film make me hate the book after I see it?

[dx23]

Not that it means anything, but the New York Red Bulls apparently didn't care for it.

We went to see Watchmen as a team and, for the guys who actually made it through the whole movie, regretted it afterward.

If players of the most boring sport on earth can't even make it through this, I'm definitely avoiding it.

If it is the most boring sport, why is it the one most played around the world?

I've been avoiding this. I really liked the book. But, I absolutely hated everything Zack Snyder directed before this. Then I saw the trailers for Watchmen, plus 5 minutes of clips online. It looks like straight-to-DVD crap. Now...the important thing is, will the film make me hate the book after I see it?

After reading your post, I would presume that you'll hate the film, not the book. And you will hate Snyder and WB even more.

[essrog]

Not that it means anything, but the New York Red Bulls apparently didn't care for it.

If players of the most boring sport on earth can't even make it through this, I'm definitely avoiding it.

If it is the most boring sport, why is it the one most played around the world?

Oh, I was just having fun being the Ugly American. Two of America's (and my) favorite sports are baseball and golf, so it's not like we can't get poked fun at for the same thing. Besides, if popularity provided immunization from criticism, no one could say anything bad about Titanic since it's the biggest international money-maker ever. And I don't think that's a world you'd want to live in.

[dx23]

If players of the most boring sport on earth can't even make it through this, I'm definitely avoiding it.

If it is the most boring sport, why is it the one most played around the world?

Oh, I was just having fun being the Ugly American. Two of America's (and my) favorite sports are baseball and golf, so it's not like we can't get poked fun at for the same thing. Besides, if popularity provided immunization from criticism, no one could say anything bad about Titanic since it's the biggest international money-maker ever. And I don't think that's a world you'd want to live in.

[dx23]

Roger Ebert is mesmerized with Dr. Manhattan.

[Murdoch]

The comments by the guy named Paul should be filed under the rediculous review thread

But yes I would like to thank Mr Snyder (whose 300 I loathed, but whose zombie movie was fun) for giving the culture the opportunity to put this particular work in its proper place. Watchmen is like something I'd have written at 18 or 19, only I'd have abandoned it because I'd have seen how childish and embarrassing it all really was.

[Svevan]

Against my better judgment, I actually really enjoyed this flick. Though my attitude going in (and my previous posts reflect this) was one of active hostility, I was won over by Snyder's "over-reverence" or whatever. It worked like Watchmen works. Snyder runs into problems when he adds stuff: the over-the-top violence was out of place, and the sex scene in Archie was omg hilarious, unintentionally. Other than that, and some "really awesome" superfluous slow-mo and CG, I felt like the whole thing had a strong tone. Patrick Wilson and Jackie Earle Haley both give great perfs (but yeah, everyone in the flick is too young), and Crudup's voice-acting was a strong choice that I would not have anticipated (as a fan of the novel). The opening credits, the usage of Philip Glass during Manhattan's origin story, the opening fight scene, and the last twenty minutes all rank very high for me: it looked like a comic book, and 90% of the time, it looked like Watchmen.

I did feel like the second half of the film was pretty rushed. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but maybe Snyder's director's cut will clean things up.

[domino harvey]

Oh look, there's a primer for seeing the film

8. There is graphic sex and violence in it.
Several asshats on the Internet have been bitching about the amount of graphic violence in the film saying that it is “over-the-top” and baseless. These same individuals have also been known to stare directly into the sun and vote for Ross Perot. Yes, there is some graphic sex and violence in the film but it all has a point. It’s called deconstruction. Look it up.

I don't need to look "deconstruction" up, which is how I can tell that whoever wrote this does

[Binker]

10. It’s not a super hero movie

Don't go into this film expecting Fantastic Four or Spiderman 3. Why? Well, first off, Fantastic Four and Spiderman 3 sucked. Second, this film has a few things that those films didn't have — mainly plot, character, conflict, symbolism, tone, and allegory. “But it has super heroes in it — doesn't that make it a super hero movie?” Right, and Blade Runner is a “robot” movie.

Add plot, character, conflict, symbolism, tone, and allegory to the list

[knives]

I thought Blade Runner was a clone/cyborg/android movie?

[Binker]

Right, and Au hasard Balthazar is a donkey movie.

[diligentboy]

I think Brad Dourif could pull it off, and Dafoe is too old. Damn this movie better be good, Watchmen is my bible.

i just like to watch the watchmen, i think it suits for my taste.

[statsman]

I don't need to look "deconstruction" up, which is how I can tell that whoever wrote this does

15 years ago, I used to enjoy asking people who used the term "post-modern", "What does 'post-modern' mean?"

The best response was, "Uh, it's like REM music".

(Disclosure- the only definition I know is one I heard at an art lecture- "incorporating classical elements into a modern composition". I am sure others here have better definitions.)

[Cde.]

Saw this in a cinema for 50c. I wouldn't have payed more. Christ, what a total disaster!

This is an embalmed Watchmen. Snyder attempts to replicates the narrative and structure of the graphic novel, but completely misses the tone and intellectual depth. This film is completely dead on the screen, with no evidence of any real engagement by the director with this material. An adaptation requires a certain level of re-imagining so that an artist can feel the emotions and think the ideas that they want to put up on screen, but Snyder stays so reverent that this the film is practically entirely unfelt.
Structurally, it's all over the place. Snyder, Tse and Hayter failed to streamline Watchmen into a screenplay; this one tries to do everything and go as many places as possible but unlike in the graphic novel, there is no sense of mounting tension, nor an intellectual line of thought, emerging from the sequence of events. Ultimately it's goddamn boring.

We never get any sense of the mentality of the civilians. This is absolutely cripping. Watchmen is a work set against the backdrop of fear of a nuclear holocaust, yet there's no feeling of building dread (the 'war room' sequences, complete with Fake Nixon, a complete joke, and were probably intended to fill this void). It's a work which looks at superheroes as our 'watchmen' yet this film fails to address their relationship with the general population in any depth.

Any messages Watchmen wishes to impart or questions it wishes to raise about the morality and consequences of violence are completely underplayed by the way Snyder basks in the gore (funny how some sequences have been designed to mirror Moore and Gibbons' own creative decisions until Snyder sees an opportunity to hone in on the bloodshed). The violence is so ridiculously over the top as to be without impact. The opening fight in particular is hysterical.

Watchmen challenges the notion that individuals can hold the wisdom to make decisions for the whole, and asks questions about the ethics and mentality behind those who would place themselves in such a position and the decisions they make. Snyder tries to get at this but undercuts this idea at every step with his relentless glorification of the cast through hollow iconography (and totally badass slow-fast ramping). The plot points are in check, but gone is the questioning of what superheroes truly represent, or of the culture that would dream and idealise them. Watchmen's political provocation is gone. Snyder has taken a story about the dangers of heroes and atattempted to render their exploits as aesthetically gorgeous as possible. I'm not even sure if he knows what he's doing with his directorial choices or he's just trying to make the film as cool as possible. The other option is that he's deliberately trying to distance the work from its more difficult (for a mainstream audience) underlying concerns. That or he's a complete fool.
The opening credit sequence, the only time this film moved me in the slightest, is the only time Snyder tries to grapple with the power of superhero iconography and the real impact it has on American society, politics and worldview.

I'm surprised more people haven't seen through the assertion that capturing the structure and aesthetics of the book as closely as possible results in a better adaptation and a better film. As Van Sant showed, even when you appear to have made a xerox, there are subtle differences from an original work everywhere, and these subtleties are what ultimately make all the difference. A far better strategy is to adapt freely so as to get as close as possible, through your own medium and your own artistic viewpoint, to the tone, the emotions, the ideas that are essential to a work. Rather than seeing such dull nonsense as this, I would have preferred to see a wild adaptation that took some chances and injected a little bit of cinematic spark. What about a movie version of Watchmen based on the characters/imagery and structure of movies instead of comics? Yeah, it's not Watchmen you can say, but neither is this. In the end, Snyder and his team try to capture as much of the detail of the book as possible, but their omissions always seem to be that which give aspects of the original their meaning and power, meaning that this is a film thrusting conclusions down the collective throat rather than leading us to them. So much for exact adaptation.

Malin Ackerman should not try to act. Actually, most of the actors are terrible. She's just given the most dramatic heft and fails the most miserably.

I cringe thinking about how this mess must be playing to those unfamiliar with Moore's work.

[AttitudeAJM]

While I did enjoy the movie, I can't dispute any claims from people who disliked it. The truth is that comic book movies can't seem to get a grip on just being movies. They have turned into cliffnotes of the actual books. Watchmen is no different. At times the movie is too faithful to the graphic novel. If you ask me, there are only several comic movies that I can look at as just being movies. Tim Burton's Batman and Spiderman 2 come to mind first. I haven't seen XMen in quite some time so I can't really comment on it.

In general I would hope that future filmmakers look at comic movies for what they have proven to be thus far, unfilmable.

[Antoine Doinel]

David Hayter goes off the deep end and writes a terribly embarrassing open letter to Watchmen fans begging them to see it again due to the film's underperformance at the box office. Word around the water cooler is this thing needs to do $400 million to break even.

[Orphic Lycidas]

David Hayter goes off the deep end and writes a terribly embarrassing open letter to Watchmen fans begging them to see it again due to the film's underperformance at the box office. Word around the water cooler is this thing needs to do $400 million to break even.

That was one of the most pathetic things I've read in a while. I hope the film fails miserably. Have I mentioned that I really hated this film? Days later it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I just want to echo the other forum members who have lambasted the film for its extraordinarily intrusive soundtrack - perhaps the single worst soundtrack I have ever heard in any film: period! And Malin Ackerman is most definitely worthy of a Razzie. Thanks to BrianInAtlanta for pointing out the ridiculous overuse of tight headshots for the dialogue scenes. The giant squid works much better though than the Manhattan-is-watching-us-ending so-we-better-be-good.

While I have no intention of ever seeing the film again from my viewing I did not get filmnoir1's impression that Snyder was making a pro-totalitarian argument. I certainly wouldn't call him a "politically aware film-maker." If anything Snyder completely depoliticizes the story by glossing over or ignoring Rorschach's idolization of Truman, the psychological baggage and reactionary world views of most of the Minutemen/Watchmen (Rorschach and the Comedian are seen as vicious characters but none of it is related to their vigilantism), the political transformations wrought by Manhattan, etc. The fact that the film ends with Ronald Reagan instead of Robert Redford running for office suggests that Snyder and co. just don't get how the world's supposed to have changed. Hooded Justice's psychosexual reaction to violence is played for laughs and quickly dismissed (Snyder doesn't know how to use the camera to emphasize what needs to be emphasized -- Moore and Gibbons use an extreme close-up). And as Cde. mentioned, the juvenile "coolness" factor is at odds with Alan Moore's attempt at "deconstruction." All of this may very well add up to a right-wing gloss of a left-wing text but I'm not so sure it's a product of political consideration as much as it is the result of careless and automatic stupidity.

[jbeall]

David Hayter goes off the deep end and writes a terribly embarrassing open letter to Watchmen fans begging them to see it again due to the film's underperformance at the box office. Word around the water cooler is this thing needs to do $400 million to break even.

So look, this is a note to the fanboys and fangirls. The true believers. Dedicated for life.

Well, at least one sentence in that screed is correct. (Incidentally, for a guy who writes for a living, what a poorly written letter!) I was halfway inclined to see it in theaters, but I'll sit this one out just in case a fanboy takes him up on the offer.

[brendanjc]

Overall I was disappointed with the film, but I could hardly have expected anything better. I had pretty much the same complaints most people I talked to afterwards did: the music, whether explictly referenced in the comic or not, was jarring at times, Ozy's and Laurie's performances were flat, it felt rushed at times. I have to wonder if the longer cut could fix a couple of my issues, like the bewildering introduction of Ozy's pet with no explanation just to kill it off. The lack of backstory for Ozy and the excise of his expressal of doubt to Manhattan on the end were probably the most costly cuts, both would have greatly helped to balance his character out. The bigger changes to rework the ending were fine; though I'm ambivalent about Dan following Rorschach out, it certainly wasn't an awful choice. On the other hand, Manhattan's and the Comedian's backstories, the opening credits, and everything Rorschach were pitch-perfect.

The big glaring issue for me, to parrot some other posts here, was the over-the-top violence. The prison fight scene was unnecessary, the alley fight was way too brutal, the initial scene in the apartment was ridiculous. Like others have said, it turned the group into superheroes when they shouldn't have been, but I expected that much. The bigger issue for me, though, was that the sheer brutality of the climax was missing. In the book it's page after page of death - blood, limbs, children, psychic-squid-parts, the worst you can imagine. In the film we got a big blue explosion like you'd see in Independence Day and some wrecked buildings. When you couple that with the (probably necessary) deletion of the civilian subplots it really undermines the surprisingly emotional impact that the sequence has in the book. I can't help but feel like Snyder and the studio copped out.

I found myself leaving this film feeling pretty much the same way I did when I left each of the three Lord of the Rings flicks. It felt like a much better adaptation than I would ever have expected to see, and that alone is worth some praise, but it just didn't engage me in the same way. I imagine, just like LOTR, I'll pick up the extended cut when it's released and never get around to watching it.

[John Cope]

I agree 100% with Orphic. I thought this was godawful in almost every way. Yes Haley is good but his performance is wasted here. And yes the credit sequence is great but it promises a concentrated vitality that the film never delivers. This truly was so awful that I would need to have kept notes scene by scene to tell you in what ways. Take your pick really.

I am one of the few apparently who have not read the book so I can only judge based on what is there in front of me. All I can say is that whatever depth there may have been in the novel is totally absent from the film.

At this stage (and I'm not inclined to reflect on it too intensively) Snyder's worst crime appears to be what Orphic alludes to so expertly above. Even for someone like myself who does not know the source text, what is on screen just screams out Snyder's utter lack of comprehension of that material. The tone is all over the place, utterly inconstant and utterly ineffective at suggesting any depth even through simple coherence. That last scene with the fat kid in the newspaper office makes that point undeniably clear if there was ever any doubt. In all truth, I was either bored to death by the declarative intentionality of all the half digested philosophy blown up to absurdly portentous proportions or else I was lmao at everything else for being so ludicrous, so self-impressed. Jesus, some of that dialogue...

One telling thing happened. I had a Barmy type experience toward the end. For the majority of the picture there were only a couple other people in the theater with me. Then, in the last half hour, a bunch of rowdy teens loudly entered and clambered up the stadium to where I was sitting. Usually I would be irritated by this but, since nothing on screen was engaging me at all, this time I kind of welcomed it, figuring whatever happened I'd at least have a good story to tell. Well, virtually nothing happened. They immediately got quiet and sat in pretty much rapt attention throughout the climactic scenes (though one guy did say to his friend with very real seriousness, "What, he's like totally nude?" and then there were the requisite titters). Finally though, right around the time Ozy is explaining the plot to everyone one guy gets on his cell phone and intensely whispers, "I think they're playin' this fuckin' movie in two theaters!". A minute or so later he and his three friends got up and left. Somehow that whole confused, only half consciously interested response to the film felt absolutely apt.

[Antoine Doinel]

Ed Koch doesn't like it.

[Cde.]

The horror is gone from the ending. No one is traumatized by it. The characters all react as if told that their third cousin's favorite cat had been run over by a car.

This is key. There is no connection with the dread of the everyday man at the prospect of annihilation by nuclear war, and absolutely no impact to the eventual disaster. The background of the 'coming apocalypse' could almost have been removed and it wouldn't have made much difference. Has the world changed at the end? If it had, I didn't feel it. So inept is this production that I watched a film about history, ethics and apocalypse and I didn't even feel I'd witnessed anything of consequence!

Adrian Veidt's character remains surprisingly intact - he is not overly villainized - but the complexity of his decision is sort of glossed over.

I would argue that he IS overly villainized, and the complexity of his actions is definitely glossed over. The film avoids the ambiguity of the graphic novel by having Nite Owl essentially making up his mind about Ozymandias FOR US as opposed to leaving it to the audience to decide. Rather than simply representing one possible response to the situation Ozy presents him with, he becomes the audience substitute, and all that finger-pointing was beyond unnecessary. The moral quandary of the film isn't about what is right or acceptable, but simply whether to shut up or not. The final shot of Ozy when Dan and Sally leave in the Owlship (and accompanying music cue) is horrendous, and I think it fairly clearly paints him as something of a tragic villain.

I agree with John Cope about this film's complete lack of consistency in tone or vision, which renders it borderline incoherent. Often while watching this I was wondering if it could be really be satisfactorily followed or understood by those unfamiliar with the beats of the story.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

I was expecting this to be terrible. I mean dreadful in a way that'd make me throw up from the stomach cramps. It wasn't that bad, though. It was just merely interesting. I wish the film had just played the opening credits then from there showed Comedian going through the window and then cutting to the cemetery scene so as to properly get the narrative going. I wish that the move had done this. Instead you get an opening fight scene that tried to outperform Tarantino in terms of badassness. Seriously, the fight with Comedian felt like Snyder ripping off the Kill Bill fight between Vivica Fox and Uma Thurman. Just without the hilarity, grace, and talent. I don't care for the violence in the film. I'm afraid that it'd harm the potential of someone wanting to read the book. Moore and Gibbons never made the book as gritty and violent as the film does. The book has many layers that the film totally skips or screws up. A problem I had with the flashbacks in the cemetery was that it just glomped them all together in a cursory manner. The advantage of the book - granted, any book - is that the progression of the narrative was better: smoother, meaningful, and accomplished. Those flashbacks just threw it together and moved on. I didn't expect a perfect movie - indeed, I was surprised by what relative good was in it - but some of this stuff was just sloppy. Anyway, I have to mention the sex scene in the ship. It was basically pornography. How best to serve it? By playing some freaking Leonard Cohen! There went the boners. Seriously, that scene was MST3K levels of mockery. Her boots were on, the man's ass was wiggling, the reaction shots as she came to the Leonard Cohen, the flames. How on earth did that scene happen? It was just so ridiculous. The Leonard Cohen alone with those visuals took me out of the movie. As someone here said, there really is opportunity to just take a pick for what's wrong with the movie. Just to wrap up, I think that the conclusion was just as ridiculous as that sex scene. Numbed anger is all the emotion that can be summoned from seeing that annihilation? Daniel acted more distraught at Manhattan's treatment of Rorshach than anything else. Then there was the Mozart and falling snow as we leave Ozymandias. Give me a break. I saw the inscription from Shelley, but how ironically are we to read it? There's no indication. Why include it as a throwaway if include it at all? Sure, Veidt is named Ozymandias, but I don't think anyone in the audience really got it. In the end, the movie is just interesting and nothing else. However, I like how the songs used in the film were all specific to that time period and I really liked Haley. Curiously, he sounded to me like the Rorshach in the book as I read it. Otherwise, the acting felt uniformly stuck in one register. This film was disappointing on its own terms, but at least it wasn't as abysmal as I'd feared.

[John Cope]

Watchmen dies an excruciating and deserved death at the b.o.

This is one of those rare occasions when the taste of the "average movie goer" was encouraging. The AICN fanboys will assumedly say that it's because the movie was "too dark" or "too deep" but the truth is that it simply collapses as dramatic narrative and is a flat out bad film. I expect that's what the majority of people are picking up on.

[JonathanM]

I suspect its weak numbers are due to its adult cntent. Expect it to shift fuckloads on DVD.

I actually thought that it was a decent enough film. The adaptation per se is too faithful to the comic. I don't think the accusations that it is dumbed down are fair. The story and ideas of Watchmen are in there. The adaptation is so faithful that I didn't really think that I was gaining much from watching the film compared to reading the comic. It isn't an adaptation that embraces the possibilities of the its new medium. Having said that, I think that the best bits in the film were bits created by Snyder. The opening montage is superb and the sex scene really brought out the kinky-sex-death alignment that was partly played down in the comic but played up here in a way that nicely continued the themes explored by Snyder in 300.

I certainly enjoyed it more than I did say Milk.