Dones’ Review: Watchmen (May Contain Spoilers)
Cats: Books, Movies|Bottom Line: Well done, though not for everyone.
**Note: If you want to remain totally spoiler-free before you watch the film (or read the book), please note this review does contain what I would call significant spoilers. It’s also safe to assume any comments may contain spoilers**
Having read and thoroughly enjoyed the graphic novel of Watchmen, I was very excited to see the film. I was lucky enough to see it, finally, on Saturday night with my brother (who appreciated the book but didn’t like it) and my father (who knew nothing about the book going into the film). As such, I think I can provide a 360-degree review (at least from a male perspective).
It was a really good film. Well-filmed, well-cast, well-directed. Naturally I liked the story, which was handled as well as possible, considering how convoluted it is. (Many have required to read the book a few times to get it all straight; a tribute to the density of the story, in my opinion). My father said he was able to follow along well enough, though the next day he admitted that it was indeed convoluted. My brother and I had no trouble following along, and I found myself “watching the Watchmen” with the same fervor that I had when seeing the Lord of the Rings trilogy for the first time. The director kept out anything from the book that would obviously drag down the story, beefed up the action (sometimes to a fault–more on that later), and even managed to get the ending changed in a way that stayed true to the original while actually making more sense, in my opinion.
I’ve heard some talk of mis-casting. I think that may have been preliminary concerns, because I thought all of the principal roles were cast perfectly. Most of these were even good actors. The only poor acting job I noticed was Malin Akerman, who played Silk Spectre II with moments of wooden line delivery and zero emotion. She actually did better, I think, emoting to Dr. Manhattan than to Nite Owl II. Ironic, but maybe they stuck too close to the book for those scenes, as I don’t think the character was particularly stellar in the Nite Owl II scenes, either. Another nit to pick: Rorschach had a bit too gravelly of a voice for my taste (must have taken a cue from The Dark Knight), and I wish for once they had dubbed his lines over when he was behind the mask, because they came through too muffled at times. Nite Owl II & The Comedian both stepped straight off of the page and onto the screen, which was cool because they’re my most & least favorite characters, respectively.
The CG was surprisingly off in a place or two (given this film’s budget and the state of the art today): most of the effects were superb, don’t get me wrong–but Dr. Manhattan’s conglomeration of live-action performance and CG body just didn’t quite mesh as well as I’d expect from Hollywood nowadays…something around the face, and maybe it was just the showing I went to, but his lip-synching wasn’t quite right (everyone else’s was fine). Maybe this was an artistic choice by the movie-makers (possible given the character in question), but it felt like a mistake. Billy Crudup’s acting was as good as can be expected within this framework. Here’s a question, though: why did the director think that repeaded full-frontal super-dudity was a good idea?
…Which brings me to the number one problem I had with the Watchmen film: the film adaptaption of the graphic novel was too graphic. Granted, we had different standards in 1986 than in 2009, so they probably couldn’t have put so much nudity, sex, and graphic violence in the ink & paint version (I suppose there was some straight gore, but not in the action); but it was precisely these additions by director Zack Snyder that had me physically turning away from the screen at times. Sure, I’m more puritan than some moviegoers I know, but I’m also no prude when it comes to sex or violence when it serves a purpose in a work of art. The sex scene was apparently pulled straight out of the textbook titled “Gratuitous”, although some of the nudity surrounding it (male & female) was tolerable and appropriate…if unnecessary. But I’ll take Dr. Manhattan to task for hardly ever covering up. It was clear from the book that he was nude, and I think we may have seen direct anterior evidence of this in a frame or two, but Snyder’s choice to storyboard (I can’t say ‘film’ because he wasn’t an on-film character, strictly speaking) the blue man-god below the waist time and again was … well, I guess it gave me practice at looking him in the eyes instead, but I wonder what they’ll do when it’s time to bring the film to basic cable. I could go on, but sufficed to say that if the character had been female, I think they would have chosen to cover her up more. And lastly, I expected a little gore and quite a bit of action, but why are bone-crunchingly close-up shots of bad guys’ knees and arms being snapped required to show just how powerful the superheroes are? I don’t say this very often, but this film truly would have been better if they’d taken Greek theatre’s meaning of ‘obscene’ (literally ‘off scene’). It would have given the film another half star in my overall rating.
So I will let this dead horse lie for a moment, and get on with the ratings:
Production value: 4/5 stars. I’m not going to subtract points for the CG issues noted above, because the splendor of the rest of the effects and overall production were just that good. Yes, I could also mention some noticeable makeup on some characters as they aged (and some famous characters that just didn’t quite look right), but won’t count off just for that. I could also point out that the CG Bubastis (purple tiger) was pretty weak, but that alone wouldn’t take away a full star. But all of these together combine to take away from what I would have considered a special effects masterpiece. They apparently spent so much time and money on Dr. Manhattan’s trip to Mars (and some other notably outstanding sequences) that they neglected to get Bubastis lit correctly and match Dr. Manhattan’s face & voice to the CG model. I will truly overlook the makeup because it was as good as I’ve ever seen it (Carla Gugino was totaly unrecognizable, in a good way, as Sally Jupiter). Perhaps intentionally, the real-life historical characters included in this film were comically unbelievable. That could be an artistic decision, which I would respect if Snyder meant for it to be that way. After all, it’s pretty funny sometimes to see real celebrities showing up in comics, despite the most serious intentions of the artists.
Story: 5/5 stars. Snyder nailed this part, and of all the things he needed to get right, this is the one. He left out the Black Freighter sequences, which added a ton to the value of the graphic novel (to me) but really is not germane to the overall arc. Good choice to not even touch on that. Also, he changed the ending, the center of the entire climax…but what he did in its place made even more sense than the original. The cahracter development was as good as could be managed within the larger story, and I think it was managed masterfully.
Enjoyability: 4/5 stars: I don’t think it’s a surprise to anyone why only 4 stars on enjoyability. Let me just state that despite the graphic sex, violence, and nudity, this was a thoroughly well-made film that I still walked away from smiling. Therefore, I am happy to give this film the following over all rating…
Dones’ Rating: 
Watchmen is the film that fans of the graphic novel have been waiting for, if not the fulfillment of all their dreams. Non-readers’ experiences may vary. Zack Snyder needs to pull away from his Dawn of the Dead & 300 roots and bring the graphic sex, violence, and nudity under control.
