"After the revelation of "The Dark Knight," here is "Watchmen," another bold exercise in the liberation of the superhero movie. It's a compelling visceral film -- sound, images and characters combined into a decidedly odd visual experience that evokes the feel of a graphic novel. It seems charged from within by its power as a fable; we sense it's not interested in a plot so much as with the dilemma of functioning in a world losing hope."
-- Roger Ebert, RogerEbert.com
"This movie delivers as a splashy, bloody comic-book adventure that stays true to its roots without being slavish about it (despite numerous images taken directly from the comic's pages). It's both headlong and thought-provoking, attacking the notion of heroism and the role of the hero in society in ways that 'The Dark Knight' only talked about."
-- Marshall Fine, Hollywood and Fine
Let's get the unavoidable DC Comics-based superhero movie comparisons over with: Despite superficial affinities (masked marvels, super-hype), "The Dark Knight" and "Watchmen" could not be further apart in style, ambition, or their approach to storytelling. One is set in a photorealistic Gotham City, shot on location in Chicago; the other in a sprawling fantasy universe that encompasses places called "New York," "Antarctica" and "Mars," but that exists only in the imagination. One takes place in a specific window of time; the other in a distorted, alternative 1985 (Richard Nixon is serving his fifth term as President of the United States) that re-invents the past and the future so as to turn the very concept of "time" inside-out. One is a mechanical, plot-driven action movie, edited in a woodchipper; the other is a dystopian science-fiction satire that doesn't so much spin an intricately tangled web of interwoven stories as create an environment in which its various elements are set bouncing off one another in perpetuity. ("Nothing ends...")
(Below: One of many period influences on "Watchmen" -- Ridley Scott's famous 1979 Chanel No. 5 commercial. It's still the director's finest work.)
Yes, I believe "Watchmen" is cleverly designed especially for people who have read the graphic novel -- and I'm very glad I re-read it the week before seeing the movie. Instead of feeling like I already knew was "going to happen," I felt a quickening sense of anticipation over how (or if) what I thought was going to happen was going to happen. I found myself mostly delighted by the multifarious choices the film was continually making, many of them playing on those very expectations with a subtle wink or a nod.
The famous opening shot, for example. It's not the opening shot of the movie, but it's in there, with a couple little twists. The folks who are seeing an obsequious recapitulation of the graphic novel simply don't remember what was really in the graphic novel. That the movie has convinced them it has simply illustrated the comic-book as if it were a series of storyboards is, I think, a sign that the film version has re-interpreted the paper-bound version in cinematic terms. (It was writer Alan Moore -- you know, the guy who hates all comic book movies and gives so many interviews about it -- who said he tries to do things in his work that wouldn't translate to film, which is why he won't allow his name to be associated with any of them. Except in all those interviews he gives.)
So, although I was conscious of scenes and images and moments that I was looking forward to, I rarely felt I knew precisely what would come up next. Besides, the film revises the ending significantly (and improves on it) -- and condenses and conflates and omits and elides moment by moment, shot by shot, as any nearly three-hour movie of a nearly 400-page graphic novel would have to. Some things that are in the foreground of the comics are woven into the background of the movie. (The "Black Freighter" and "Under the Hood" stories are now available on DVD, and will be re-integrated into an extended version of "Watchmen" for home video.) It's probably possible to connect all the dots in the plot, but to do so would be as silly as trying to outline the "story points" in an Oriental rug.
So, you may find yourself wondering what the hell is happening during "Watchmen," but that's built into the very nature of the experience -- and it should elicit an appreciative smiley-smile rather than a frustrated frown. You don't feel (as I sometimes did in "TDK") that you're in the hands of a movie that just isn't very competently made. There's no question this picture knows exactly what it's doing and that it respects your ability to put the parts together. You do not have to wonder what the hell is going on between shots (why is that over there now?) because the movie's seams are showing.
Some are saying "Watchmen" has been storyboarded within a micrometer of its life, that it's too slow and deliberate, "too reverent" in its attempt to re-create the comics on the screen and therefore feels like it's been "embalmed" (clever Egyptian reference, that). OK, if that's the way you see it. Not me, though. I was, for the most part, entertained and provoked and amused by a work that stimulated my eyes and my mind, not just my reflexes. I think both Marshall Fine and Roger Ebert make excellent points in what they say above. "Watchmen" is conceived and crafted as an immersive experience, not merely a script that has been illustrated-by-cinema almost as an afterthought.
Let me put it this way: There's a shot of a swinging bathroom door in "Watchmen" (one of countless images that is not taken from the comics), that is imbued with a visual wit, a love of movies, that makes you laugh with delight even as you cringe. I watched "Watchmen" with a big smiley face on the front of my head almost all the way through. It's consistently funny, though not necessarily in a guffaw-out-loud way. Think "Dr. Strangelove," subject of humorous references that, like many things you'll recall from the movie, feel like they had to have been in the comics, but aren't.
Much of the pre-release debate about "Watchmen" has come down to whether it can satisfy passionate "fanboys" and be popular enough to turn a profit, given that it's basically an ultra-violent, R-rated, political satire/philosophical essay with ludicrously retro-cartoonish masked psychopaths, breast nudity and an ambivalent ending that intentionally refuses to satisfy. Will women want to see it? Will parents take their kids? I have no interest in those questions. But now that we've got that "TDK" stuff out of the way (and it is quite possible to appreciate both movies for different reasons), I'm very interested in continuing to explore what it means to actually watch "Watchmen"!
; )
Glad to know that it's possible for me to enjoy "TDK" and "Watchmen" and not just one or the other. I was afraid of that.
Whenever Ebert uses the word experience, that means it is a success. Most times, at least.
Now, even Jim has used it. I think Watchmen is going to be one of the most fascinating studies for this year.
For the most part, that is what we want.
You see! You see America! This is what we miss by relegating the role of the critic to the blogosphere. So much endless non-speak seems to have been directed at this film beforehand from, passionate though they may be, rather unqualified sources who find offering, "this movie blows donkey d***" as a legitimate criticism of a film. We lose that to these nerds and we've lost the art of appreciation and careful consideration of a work.
I myself am guilty of looking over these things, posts from the uninitiated who've seen sneak previews and want to offer up their fumbling attempt at critique, clawing and scratching at the back of a bra until, utterly frustrated, the mood is ruined. Jim I propose, for myself and any others interested and in the spirit of Lent, a fast from such things, no aintitcool for forty days and forty nights, no debating on message boards on imdb, no spoilers, hell I'd even avoid a trailer for a film.
What do you think of the compulsion of some to completely ruin the discovery of a film by engaging in debate, reading spoilers or, in some cases, the entire script before sitting down to watch a film. I believe a film is designed to be watched, is it not, with talking points developed after the film has been seen rather than beforehand. Are we afraid to engage a film on its own terms? Are we emotionally crippled? Are we afraid the movie will be too smart for us so we must praise or deride beforehand? Jump the gun on everyone else?
In any case, thank you for your continued thoughtful analysis, criticism, wit, and ending the post with a smiley face...I am a fan of smiley faces.
"Let's get the unavoidable DC Comics-based superhero movie comparisons over with..."
"But now that we've got that "TDK" stuff out of the way..."
Over with? Nothing ends, Jim. Nothing ever ends.
Glad you liked it. The reviews are all over the place and the anticipation is killing me.
I've been re-reading the graphic novel these last few days and I can't possibly see how Snyder can succeed in delivering a satisfying cinematic experience.
The story unfolds in a manner that seems best suited to a more novelistic approach. There are subplots, digressions and multiple characters.
Has Snyder nailed the tone, the nuances, the visual symmetry?
Man, you have addressed the one big trepidation I've had about the movie - is it good cinema?
I've read the comic once a year since 86. I find every time I read there's something new to love or loathe about it. It's my favorite comic, despite the fact that I don't agree that it is the greatest comic ever made (I'd argue for Love and Rockets on that count).
What I was most concerned about was whether or not Snyder's film would work as a film. I knew he'd be approaching the material from his own sensibilities, his own views of what were the key themes of the work. I also knew he'd expressed his devotion to the work and how faithful he had been to the material. The brief clips that were released on-line did nothing to convince me that the property was translated very well cinematically - the words and characters were there, but everything felt oddly staged and stiff - as if his attempts to recreate the feel of a static panel had overpowered his freedom to move the camera and be creative with his placement. The early reviews had done little to alleviate that fear...
So, yeah, I'm relieved to read your thoughts on that issue. I know that while I don't always agree with your critical assessment as to the merits of a given film, you always approach the work with an eye towards the medium's mechanics and its potential for artistry. You "get" film in ways that a lot of other reviewers/critics simply don't.
I'm looking forward to taking this in on Sunday at the IMAX and seeing how well I enjoy Snyder's Watchmen movie, now that I can let go of the notion that I'm not going to just be seeing a live-action motion comic of the Moore and Gibbon's original.
Oh, and sidenote: I suggest that you check out Charles Burns' "Black Hole." It too is slated for the big screen, and it's another beautiful, haunting work with beautiful design that emphasizes a host of fascinating ideas and themes.
And, yes, it's also wickedly funny when it isn't busy creeping the hell out of you or making you weep.
Thanks for telling me everything I wanted to hear. Man, I'm thinking about sending Kenneth Turan a "you don't get it" e-mail . . . and I haven't even seen it yet!
Saturday at the Pacific Science Center Imax, though! Look out!
In completely unrelated news, will "Last Year at Marienbad" ever be released on dvd/blu-ray/anything?
If we're going to compare, we should compare him to the Blue Beetle, because you see, when DC purchased the Charlton characters in 1985....
...Oh, nevermind.
Give it rest with The Dark Knight. Enough already. We all know that you didn't like it but your vendetta is getting ridiculous and tiresome. It seems you're being contrary just to be contrary.
I didn't particularly like the first Spiderman but I didn't go on and on about it nearly nine months after it's release and continually hound on it. You don't like it; there are many who do. Leave it at that.
JE: Perhaps you didn't read the post, or understand the set-up about how, though superficially similar, the two movies are worlds apart. (Try to find a "Watchmen" review that doesn't mention "The Dark Knight.") At the end, I wrote: "It is quite possible to appreciate both movies for different reasons." That's why I took this approach.
So this isn't an article comparing and contrasting the characters of Nite Owl and Batman, that's disappoint that's what I was hoping to read based on article's title.
Also:
"You don't feel (as I sometimes did in "TDK") that you're in the hands of a movie that just isn't very competently made. There's no question this picture knows exactly what it's doing and that it respects your ability to put the parts together. You do not, as in "TDK," have to wonder what the hell is going on between shots (why is that over there now?) because the seams are showing."
could you provide a litter further insight as to what you mean there? That is not a complaint I've ever heard of The Dark Knight before, and doesn't echo any sentiments I had while watching the film at all.
JE: I've been writing about just that for months. Some think it's a deliberate artistic strategy in "TDK," meant to be disorienting for the viewer and to evoke the Joker's description of "chaos." For me, it just kept distracting me and distancing me from the movie. The headline is figurative -- from watching the comparisons in the flood of "Watchmen" reviews. In future writing about the movie I'd like to explore what it does with the comic-book convention of caped crusaders as vigilantes, crazy mixed-up people who think they're heroes even when they act like villains....
Ah, Jim, I figured your mere mentioning of The Dark Knight would bring out the extreme partisans. It's alright, though, let's move on ...
I haven't seen Watchmen yet, but I will Saturday, so I can't really engage in the discussion for the moment. However, I'm intrigued how you described the movie:
" ... a dystopian science-fiction satire that doesn't so much spin an intricately tangled web of interwoven stories as create an environment in which its various elements are set bouncing off one another in perpetuity. ('Nothing ends...')"
At the risk of sounding pretentious, it sounds to me almost like an adaptation of a Pynchon novel in the sense that there may be some sort of underlying plot, or conspiracy, which drives the action, but the substance and the experience is defined by being immersed in all these messy, paranoid, chaotic interactions (including those of the viewer) in a hyper-realized and all-too comic world. Could you look at Watchmen, then, as a successful version of what Richard Kelly may have thought he was doing on Southland Tales?
jeremy: Last Year at Marienbad has been on DVD for a long time. In fact, I own a copy. But the DVD is European—no American release is yet imminent—so you have to buy it from an importer.
This looks like a movie that'll be more appreciated in the future, like Dark City. I think Ebert recognized how good that film was when it came out in '98 and it looks like he's doing the same for watchmen, despite what other critics are saying. There is too much shallow criticism nowdays and people don't care to observe everything movies have to offer. This is why i think rottentomatoes.com is bad for film recommendation. When I read the other reviews for watchmen, I'm wondering whether critics actually saw the film, or if they simply watched the trailer and borrowed their puns from someone else's article.
Glad you appreciated the movie so much, Jim. And yes, if it's anything like the comic, it is indeed and absorbing experience. But I can't bring myself to even begin to agree with you on TDK. Many of the themes in Watchmen are already there in TDK: A threat that is too big to be confronted with old, moderated methods... a heroic figure who works outside the system and sometimes abuses its power... a negative figure who works to expose the flaws in human nature/society... the hero being to dependant to the costume/identity he has made for himself, being vitalized by his vigilantism... notions on the abuse of power, of doing wrong things for the greater good, of how modern society would cohabitate with a vigilante, of how terrorism really works, etc.
All of those things were already in The Dark Knight. And most of the time you fail to acknowledge them. The main difference is that The Dark Knight tries to not lose its accesibility while displaying these themes, and Watchmen may be a lot less accesible, considering the source material. Your way to compare the two seems too formal to me, and your criticism of TDK is again limited to formal complaints, things you only seem interested in backing up with cherrypicking scenes that are not integral to the film. Why? I may be wrong here, but it seems that you REALLY didn't get The Dark Knight, and that's a sad thought.
So yes, I think you're wrong with this comparison. The Dark Knight is ALSO a violent, political satire/philosophical essay with cartoonish masked psychopaths, and an ambivalent (and CONTROVERSIAL) ending that intentionally refuses to satisfy the standard Hollywood norms. The difference is that Nolan prefers a more Dostoievskian approach to the notion of a leader that abuses its power and deceives the masses (read The Brothers Karamazov) and Moore is more fond of a VERY cynical view of the futility of politics (which may be right).
Nolan made a defense of Society and how order and cooperation should be defended from anarchic terror, because no matter how often we surrender to our lower passions and vices, there's still a lot of inherent virtue to man. And he tried to get that message across as much as he could, aesthetically linking Gotham to any cosmopolitan American city and trying to reinforce the message with (yes, sometimes obvious) expository dialogue. But, as Manhola Dargis said, "he pitched for the crack between art and industry" and that seems too bold and right to dismiss as you're doing here over and over. It's a very valid notion that does not pertain AT ALL to not knowing the movie business too well.
On the contrary.
Take care.
JE: Believe me, I know I'm in the minority on TDK. I found it conventional (very little I hadn't seen before, done more absorbingly) and rather dull to look at. I don't know exactly why it became a pop-culture phenomenon (we can only speculate about that -- nobody knows for sure exactly why 1989's "Batman" or Beatlemania exploded, either). I'm only interested in the movie. Of course I "cherry-pick" examples I can use to convey my overall impressions. The reason I quoted Marshall Fine was because I thought he nailed it: "Watchmen" develops its themes with great visual imagination and expresses skepticism about the whole idea of masked vigilantes being seen as "heroes." They're just screwed-up people who do crazy things -- some of them illegal, immoral, and downright villainous -- in the name of truth, justice and the American Way. It doesn't tell you how to think about them, it shows them to you.
Although I am a big dark knight fan I have to say that i have agreed with almost every criticism you've given it, but what can I say, I still loved it.
And I have to say that this article and roger's review makes me very excited about watchmen, I've read the GN just once like a month ago and im not sure if i should read it one more time before seeing it tomorrow, since i kinda want to see it without knowing exactly what happens next but only having a vague outline, and i want to know what my friend, who im going with, thinks about it, having never read the GN.
And what will everyone think about, will it be a succes? will people understand it? im not really sure, but at least its not like a sequel depends on the fact that this one makes a profit, at least i hope not.
Also, sorry if there were any grammar mistakes, english is my second language.
Greetings from Mexico.
JE: Thanks, francisco from one of my favorite countries! (I lived in Los Angeles for seven years, and spent some quality time in Mexico. Got to fulfill my dream of spending Dias de los Muertos in Oaxaca one year!) I think you understand that I'm not trying to ruin "TDK" for anybody; I'm just saying it has some significant flaws -- and many people acknowledge them and love it anyway. Please let us know what you and your friend think after seeing "Watchmen"...
I appreciate your take and your comments on my posting (http://www.seanax.com/2009/03/05/this-is-not-a-watchman-review/). And I must say that we seem to appreciate the same things in Snyder's version, only I think there's too little Snyder and too much literal faithfulness and you find much more creative interpretation and visual play than I do. Maybe if I read it again... but no, I think I'll just wait for Snyder's extended DVD version. And I do think longer, more leisurely told films are well suited for DVD, on the small screen in the comfort of home. Time seems to work just a little differently there in that situation.
Meanwhile, to get a taste of Moore's more lighthearted and playful (but equally thoughtful and dense) take on comic book conventions and golden-age history, see his run on Supreme, which has been collected in two volumes. It is a pure delight and a real expression of love and affection for the same comic history he rewrites in Watchmen.
Just came back from a midnite showing in IMAX over in New Rochelle, NY.
It's tough to talk about... half of me was watching it as the fanboy that picked up Watchmen back in the 80's and was blown away by it. The other half tried to forget that and judge it on its own terms.
I'm not quite sure what to say. Hmmm...
Is it worth seeing? Sure. Does it remain faithful to the book? Nope. Is there anything I can say unequivocally was wrong about it? Yes! The soundtrack... it was very distracting. The premise is that this is a different path reality took because of costumed heroes. Earth, esp. USA, is in a very different mood. But Snyder uses classic rock tunes as background for many scenes... many of those tunes would not have been written in this alternate reality. It's a minor point but it was distracting, and I think I can safely say it without being tarred and feathered.
I'll let those with a better command of the written word speak up, but overall I'm a little ambivalent about it. Do I regret seeing it? Of course not.
"it's basically an ultra-violent, R-rated, political satire/philosophical essay with ludicrously retro-cartoonish masked psychopaths, breast nudity and an ambivalent ending that intentionally refuses to satisfy."
Jim, that sounds like either the best or the worst movie ever.
I didn't think Watchmen was either--but I did think it was pretty marvelous. It lost some of the depth of the graphic novel (but, as I mentioned elsewhere a while back--it's virtually impossible for a film to deliver on the intricate layers of theme that can be constructed in a novel), but it delivered on most of the major points and provided an immersive visual experience with impressive performances and a clear tone and atmsphere--it brought the comic to the screen in a satisfying way.
I was very pleased with it.
JE: Me, too. With that description I'd hoped to convey what you got from it -- that it's a pretty daring, risky, ambitious film. Even if you think it hews too closely to the graphic novel, that hardly means it's playing it safe. There is no "safe" in "Watchmen"!
Is Watchmen "too violent?" Dana Stevens on Slate says there's a glorified slo-motion, violent action scene every 15 minutes for the entire runtime. It seems like it might be a tiresome experience, despite the good things I've read here and elsewhere. Does the action at least make spatial sense, or is it an overcut mess?
I'm on the fence here, with a ten-dollar bill in my hand.
I for one am truly looking forward to seeing this film, once the mad line-ups die down a bit. After recently looking at the graphic novel, I am struck by how extraordinarily static it is compared to the average comic book. Dare I say it, it's one of the dullest comics in terms of design, color composition and layout I have ever seen. I enjoyed it when I read it years ago, but now I would rather "read" it than look at it. It's supposed to be filled with details, but at the expense of overall visual energy. The drama just dies in the lifeless panels. Is it an age thing? I don't think so. Jack Kirby, Steve Rude, Mike Mignola, these artists make you return to the comics to appreciate the visual dynamism, panel structure and solid design.
I look forward to Snyder lifting The Watchmen from the pages and injecting the operatic, mythological soul it needs.
Miguel said: "Is there anything I can say unequivocally was wrong about it? Yes! The soundtrack... it was very distracting. The premise is that this is a different path reality took because of costumed heroes. Earth, esp. USA, is in a very different mood. But Snyder uses classic rock tunes as background for many scenes... many of those tunes would not have been written in this alternate reality. It's a minor point but it was distracting, and I think I can safely say it without being tarred and feathered."
I haven't seen the movie yet, so I have to ask whether the songs were part of the actual background scenes and possibly heard by the characters, or simply part of the score? If they're just in the score and only heard by the audience, then they strike at what Jim is looking to do: how do we go about watching "Watchmen"? The songs, or quotes from them, help frame (often ironically) the action and motives of characters in the book and help us understand the intentions of the author. For example, he uses the Hendrix cover of "All Along the Watchtower" during a scene that, in the book, employed the lyrics. Is this because it would resonate more with the audience, or because it's a take on Dylan's words, much like the film is his take on Moore/Gibbons? So, is the inclusion of the songs in the film evidence of Snyder's slavish devotion to the text, or is it an indication to the audience of how Snyder himself "watches" the Watchmen? Is there any difference?
Is there anything I can say unequivocally was wrong about it? Yes! The soundtrack... it was very distracting. ... But Snyder uses classic rock tunes as background for many scenes... many of those tunes would not have been written in this alternate reality.
I saw the midnight show last night, and I was left really impressed. As I wrote in my review though, I thought the use of pop tunes was awesome. Even kind of ballsy since so many superhero/graphic novel adaptations don't use pop songs for that very reason: to make the viewer feel like s/he's in another world.
But I think Snyder using those songs helps us view the movie in a real-world context, as a modern fable, since they're a part of our world. And the way they use three Dylan songs (especially the cover of "Desolation Row," one of my absolute favorite Dylan songs, during the end credits) is one of my favorite things about the movie.
But I agree it has some minor issues. Especially using Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" during a slow-mo sex scene. Really unnecessary, I thought.
But still, I can't wait to see it again, and on IMAX.
JE: I thought the use of music was mostly ironic ("99 Luftballons") and refreshing -- except for "Hallelujah," which felt gratuitous. (I just hope it will help Leonard Cohen with his money problems; he was swindled by a financial advisor.) One clever touch: "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" in the background of a certain scene (quite different from the equivalent one in the comics) -- without the vocals. That shows a restraint that made the joke even funnier. Half the audience doesn't even notice it's there.
Ted--
The movie is very violent, but I think anyone complainign about it being punctuated by slick action scenes is missing the point. This is a very violet movie--and I think the slickness of the action scenes combined with their bloodiness serve as an interesting parody of superhero movies, where slick action scenes end up looking like ballet rather than violence. Here, there is no question--they pull the same acrobatic slow-mo tricks as a standard action movie, but there's no question that what is actually happening is not action, but *violence*. It's exhilarating at times, but it's dirty and nasty, and that's really the point, isn't it? To remind us that these people, and by extension us, on some level get off on violence?
Meinart, that's interesting. I find the "slo-mo" of the graphic novel utterly mesmerizing, even after all these years (like a slow motion car crash?). One of my biggest concerns about the film is exactly what you want - putting too much kinetic energy into it.
We could certainly agree to disagree about the effect, but I couldn't possibly agree with your word "dull." It's amazing composition. (Maybe I could give you "dull" on color.)
Miguel, thanks for the warning about the music - I'll brace myself. It would probably ruin the movie for me if I hadn't been forewarned. (My biggest gripe about Fellowship of the Ring was the terribly cliched "Hollywood music" - it nearly ruined FotR for me. Yeah, yeah, I'm too sensitive to that. But HBO dramas have spoiled me by being so much more judicious about their SOUND.)
Watchmen won't be showing in my country of residence, so I'll be driving to another one in a couple of weeks. I'm really appreciating all these advance reports. Can someone speak more to the qualities of performance/acting?
spolilers below regarding the changes:
While I did see the logic in changing the ending to blame the destruction of Dr. Manhattan rather than aliens, the other changes made less sense. The dialogue abotu how nothign ever ends being moved from Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan to Dan and Laurie I think softens the blow. Between this and the Tale of the Black Freighter being removed, it makes it easier to miss the point of the movie, which a lot of critic on RT seem to be doing.
Watched Watchmen earlier. Strange experience. Random old man tapped me on shoulder with about half hour of movie left. Asked if it was just starting. Looked up and whispered, "No." Can't help but want to talk like Rorschach all the time now just to annoy people.
Ahem. Yeah, I'm still kind of wrapping my mind around it, but one thing I do know: I liked it overall, but I wish the movie was longer. Not so much because of what was omitted, but because what they kept in felt a little too truncated. "Too slow and deliberate"? Deliberate maybe (not that that's necessarily a bad thing), but I actually thought it felt too rushed in certain scenes -- Dr. Manhattan's (SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER......) self-exile on Mars being the most distracting. Literally within a minute or so, he went from calm and cool in the interview, to angry, to screaming "Leave me alone," to Mars, to divulging his entire backstory. There were a few moments like that in the movie, where I felt it needed more time and more space to let the characters breath, to actually assess and absorb what was happening before barreling into the next set-piece. Now I'm really curious to see what gets put into the extended DVD version...
Oh, and also, is it possible that I'm not the only person in the world who saw this? Of course Laurie could tell Dan had a thing for her. He kept giving her that "he likes you" look.
JE: Thanks, Kris. I don't disagree with you. I thought Dr. M's emotional outburst came on too quickly in the print version. Perhaps an after-the-fact justification is that Adrian says, near the end (of the movie, at least), that he could read Manhattan's micro-expressions and knew he still had feelings. I hadn't seen that SNL bit!
Miguel: Thanks for that take. I asked myself: Would the beginning of Nixon's fifth term be different from the beginning of Reagan's second? Sure, no doubt. Without the escalation of Reagan's "Evil Empire" foreign policy, relations with the Soviet Union might have been significantly less adversarial, for one thing. (Reagan had not had his complete change of heart about dealing with the USSR by 1985, when Gorbachev became General Secretary of the Communist Party and Alan Moore began writing "Watchmen.") The terms "perestroika" (1986) and "glasnost" (1988) hadn't yet arrived in the real 1985. There would likely have been less of an arms race, less worldwide nuclear anxiety and paranoia -- but that's the satirical point of having Nixon stand in for Reagan in "Watchmen." The first Reagan administration felt like an extended Cuban Missile Crisis to much of America (hence the popularity in the first half of the decade of "The Day After," "Testament," Jonathan Schell's New Yorker series and best-selling book "The Fate of the Earth" -- and even John Milius's "Red Dawn," which wasn't about atomic armageddon but a Soviet invasion of the American heartland). "Watchmen," however, is set in an alternative historical universe, a mix of the 1985 we knew at the time and imaginative speculation about the past and the future. Some of the pre-1984 music is recontexualized: Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'" (literally re-writing much of twentieth-century world history), "All Along the Watchtower" and "Desolation Row," "Unforgettable" -- all of which are also used in the comics. (The novel also has some really awkwardly made Devo references, which have been mercifully excised.) I'm curious, though: Which songs do you think would not have been written between 1974 and 1985?
Interesting thoughts, Jim.
I enjoyed parts of the film, but I think you're giving it too much credit for making some coy references about elements that were cut from the comic—I liked some of them, but found the Doomsday clock rather forced. I certainly felt no suspense as to whether they'd actually show scenes as they play out in the comic—nor did I see any evidence of Snyder trying to create such suspense.
I think you're over-emphasizing the material that wasn't originally in the comic. I agree that the swinging bathroom door shot is a nice touch, and I chuckled at the Strangelove references (especially the way Kissinger sounds like Sellers), but there weren't that many differences.
I actually admired quite a bit of the adaptation decisions, but let's face it, with the exception of the (improved) ending, and even with the ending, it's basically a slightly restructured version of the comic. Pretty much each scene plays out exactly as it does in the book. There's an awful lot of dialogue that's basically verbatim from the comic. As I mentioned in my review, I've only read the book once, and felt a bit like Dr. Manhattan—I knew each line, word for word, before it was spoken. Now the big question: Do I blame the terrible, terrible acting on the actors (minus Haley) and Snyder's direction of them, or on the screenplay's adherence to Moore's dialogue, which maybe simply plays better on the page. Something to think about, but additional viewing may be required for conclusive findings.
Anyway, more here: http://www.thesamedame.com/2009/03/feeling-blue.html
JE: See, I thought the tone of the piece was spot-on, and the "bad" acting brought out the best in Moore's deliberately overwrought writing (while the screenplay left out the worst). There were lines on the page I couldn't imagine any character speaking out loud (I tried) -- and yet they managed to make most of them work! That's a considerable achievement, I think. Sure, most of the movie tries to be "faithful" to the comics, even as it condenses and elides, but I enjoyed most of the adaptation choices as much as I did the parts that were, by design, virtually (but not quite) transcribed from the comic (including the Doomsday clock-as-smiley-face). I think this movie is an ironic adaptation of an ironic source, and that works for the format. (I will not use the term "postmodern," I will not use the term "postmodern," I will not use the term "postmodern"... It's so 1980s.) Should "Watchmen" have been made into an HBO miniseries instead? Maybe. It could still happen: 12 hours, minimum! But this is a pretty daring feature film by any standard. (Think of "The Shining" -- book, movie, miniseries...) I think this version will survive on big-screen television (DVD, Blu-ray or otherwise) where it will not be so much a linear experience but one that can be freeze-framed, re-wound, repeated, examined in detail... like a comic book.
I know you have to examine and appreciate works on their own merit with regard to adaptations and I've done that with great success in almost all past instances (I had the most difficulty in separating "Atonement" from it's source material) but I found this almost impossible with "Watchmen". In fact, I don't know if I'll ever be able to do it completely.
Perhaps that is because it's a comic with existing concrete images that accompany the text causing them to be permanently fixed in the mind more so then adapting strictly written material. I don't feel that I'll be able to truly appreciate Snyder's vision until several more viewings of the film are completed. I almost wish I hadn't read it so that I could then compare the comic to the movie. I think that would have made analysis so much more simple... but at the same time it probably would have ruined the comic. Then again, I suppose simplicity doesn't necessitate the best analysis.
JE: I haven't seen either of Zack Snyder's previous directorial efforts, so I don't know if there is a "Snyder's vision" or what it might be. I just have the experience of this movie, and the graphic novel, to go on. I do know he accepted the job after others (Terry Gilliam, Darren Aronofsky, Paul Greengrass) had given up because, he said, he knew if he'd turned it down the studio(s) would have simply moved on to someone else. As a fan of the comics, he figured he may as well give it a shot.
One clever touch: "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" in the background of a certain scene (quite different from the equivalent one in the comics) -- without the vocals.
Yes! I did notice that and I thought that was a fantastic touch and very fitting to the scene.
On the other hand, 99 Luftballons just made me think of Liz Lemon's Nana.
It's funny you single that moment out as an example of what's good about this movie. I agree with you, it's a very effective shot. Where I disagree is I would single it out as an exception to, not an example of, what characterizes the movie. The direction is far too on the nose and obvious. I felt there was very little interesting cinema to be had here, and that was a big part of why it felt dull to me.
JE: I thought the whole thing was exploding with visual invention in nearly every shot, so I never got tired of looking at it. If there's been even one shot as clever as that one in... that other DC Comics superhero movie, I'd have been extremely grateful. I'd trade the opening credits of "Watchmen" alone for most full-length studio-produced features. (Spoilers: How about the nuclear device dropping and detonating like the New Year's ball in Times Square? Or the imaginative choice of clips on Adrian's array of screens, from "Road Warrior" to "Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2 Century" to the first Mac commercial, directed by Ridley Scott and based on "1984"? Or the god's-eye-view of the nuclear explosion in Daniel's dream? And those are just some moments that weren't taken from the comics. The realization of Dr. Manhattan's Big Blue reassembled self -- first as "a circulatory system" -- blue blew me away because it was what I'd hoped it would be from reading the comic.) You're right: It's not a "good movie" by any conventional definition. But it's something really interesting to me.
I like irony as much as the next guy, but I suspect that maybe you just have a higher tolerance for it than I do, Jim. Whatever ironic implications could have been gleaned from listening to Malin Akerman stumble through her dialogue wore off after two hours. A performance can be ironic and still have personality—in fact, if it's ironic is SHOULD have personality. But some performances, to me, lacked even a hint of character.
Likewise, I can't really agree with Stephen's argument that the fight scenes brought out the violence better than others of the same style. I've seen just as much blood and heard just as much crunching in other scenes, including Snyder's own 300. Now here's something I might have enjoyed: clumsily improvised fighting, not quite so slick or so choreographed, but still effective, depicted in slow-mo-porn format.
As I've said, I greatly admire Snyder's ambition, and find certain moves in the adaptation incredibly smart. But the tone wasn't working for me at all.
I agree with Marty that it's a bit harder than usual to separate the film from its source. Because most of the material follows so closely, it's hard not to remember the details from the comic that may or may not be in the film.
Also Jim: Did you hear Cohen is going on tour to help restore his funds? I don't know if I'll be able to make it to any of the shows, but it should be a good time! While I consider "Hallelujah" one of the most over-used go-to songs (it's so good that any scene has emotional impact when it's playing, so everyone sticks it in their film!), Snyder earned a little sympathy by using the Cohen original for a change.
(And thanks for the kind comment on The Same Dame!)
(Spoilers)
I find it odd that you hated Slumdog for being very obvious and cliched (noting specifically that all the bad characters have some cosmetic irregularity), but then felt the ending to the film Watchmen was an improvement. Now perhaps the idea behind it is better, blaming Manhattan instead of the space alien, but did you not feel that Ozymandias was made out to be a caricature? His obnoxious sneering voice and cold supercilious face. In the book you got a sense that he had genuine concern for humanity, in spite of his god complex, whereas in the film it's all about his god complex. When he says that he has forced himself to witness the agony he has caused, in the book it feels as if he is punishing himself; in the film it sounds like an excuse or a rationalization.
I did not feel as if millions of people had died. The film introduced no characters who actually died as a result of the bombs, and not one of the characters even seemed to be concerned about it. There is a greater emotional response after Rorschach's death than after the revelation that millions had been annihilated. The moral ambiguity was grossly underplayed.
I was not a fan of the eye-candy violence. The fire scene had to have a dumb explosion just to be a little more exciting. Every little thing had to make blood splatter in slo-motion. It didn't feel brutally meaningful; hell it didn't even feel brutal it was so over-the-top and parodic. It was just there to look cool. I felt it undermine the violent moments that actually meant something. When Rorschach sliced the man's head, not only was it underwhelming compared to burning him alive and watching it, but it felt no more important than any of the other hardcore violence that had already been taking place, so it did not feel like a revelatory moment.
And all the karate fight scenes were stupid.
I'm really surprised you thought it was a good movie.
JE: Well, again one movie is shot on location in what is supposed to be a real place, and the other is a fantasy shot on soundstages and backlots. Makes a huge difference. I understand how somebody could see the movie in the ways you describe. (Spoiler: Yes, I do think blaming Dr. Manhattan is more meaningful than the giant squid.) But I did not feel the things you describe in the comic books, either. I'd say the comic gets off on mass slaughter more than the movie does, or the movie would have looked more like the gory, nauseating bug-battlefields of "Starship Troopers," a comparably bleak, sexual, violent satirical science-fiction comedy. "Watchmen" being a pretty vicious satire of the very idea of caped crusaders as nerds and psychopaths and psychopathic nerds, I thought Ozymandias was meant to be exposed as a cliche. He's a guy who promotes his own line of action figures. And, of course, in the movie he says he's not a comic-book villain who describes his entire plan -- but, of course, he's just that. He thinks he's a god, takes his own press seriously. I see him as a ridiculous, monstrous ego. He's compared to Hitler (also a vegetarian!) and I think it's worth remembering that Hitler thought he was saving mankind by killing millions, too. Like Adrian, he was power-mad and thought he was entitled to make those kinds of decisions. Still, I respect where you're coming from. I just see the movie differently.
JE: "But this is a pretty daring feature film by any standard. (Think of "The Shining" -- book, movie, miniseries...) I think this version will survive on big-screen television (DVD, Blu-ray or otherwise) where it will not be so much a linear experience but one that can be freeze-framed, re-wound, repeated, examined in detail... like a comic book."
"TDK", for me anyway, also improved on repeat viewings (even if the flaws do become more apparent). The simple reason why is for what you just noted, that you can pause, rewind, repeat the movie, have more time to consider it, examine each thought in proposes in detail, examine each image and how it makes you feel, what thoughts it inspires.
Some films you simply can't do this with. They fall apart as you realize there's nothing there and you've been duped by the intriguing visuals and ponderous tone of the film, and your own lack of cynicism that prevents you from not at least trying to understand the film's ideas, into believing there is something there. This is how "Benjamin Button" is for me on repeat viewings. The character is a blank slate that people project their feelings, thoughts and experiences involving life and death onto and so everybody seems sure they saw 'something'. I did. Until I saw the film again my familiarity with it didn't help me better understand it, it just left me with a sense that I was watching a hollow film... with a heart but that only goes so far.
"Watchmen", which I saw last night and loved, is certainly not a hollow film and it's much more obvious that it isn't on first viewing than "TDK: or "Button" or even something like "Fight Club"... or "Synecdoche, NYK". But, like those films, there is so much thrown at you first viewing that you must see the movie again to get a better grip on it and it'll probably take multiple viewings to master. The first time the ideas are there, you get them, and then you lose them as the film rushes forward into the next. This could be because there's something wrong with the film, or it could be that we aren't the world's smartest man and it takes us time to keep up with the speed of the film.
But movies like "Watchmen" and "TDK" are exhilarating as you follow them from one paradigm shifting moment to the next...
And I did see "300" and did not like it and wrote Snyder off as being technically talented but more at ease in a room full of fratboys than, say, having tea with Kubrick. "300" is war-porn bathed in homoerotic undertones and so the jock-crowds ate it up and me with my 'liberal sensibilities' was repulsed. But Synder's attraction to such a movie is what makes him the right guy for material like "Watchmen", a story that, amongst other things, knows people like violence, they get off to it, and others get off to feeling righteous, and everybody gets off to something. The movie's meditations on sex-drive and adrenaline and its links to violence are what caught me off guard and, even though it's just an aspect of the film, it humbled me as I realized my intellect sometimes keeps me at a distance from acknowledging sad truths about human nature.
I'll comment more in future posts but, for now, all and all, "Watchmen" is a brilliant, brutal and, as JIm mentioned, against all odds, strangely beautiful film. Then again, that comes from somebody who has never read the graphic novel and knew next to nothing about The Watchmen universe. So much for all those critic's theories that the reverence was supposed to prevent me from enjoying the movie. (Then and then again, I'm a geek and, according to Peter Travers, "Watchmen" is for geeks only.)
After seeing Watchmen twice, I can only say that there is something in your analysis that doesn't make sense: You talk of the act of a non-debate between Watchmen and The Dark Knight, and you cite that the former has nothing in it that maes you scratch your hed, as though there was nothing left out (as in Joker's continuous placement of the gas canisters). This, though, is a false statement, since, for reasons unbeknownst to any of the viewers during the film, there erupts some kind of riot in the jail, and everyone is somehow just "out." How the heck did that work? Truly, the film is a work of art, but that seems to pop out of nowhere, just so it can be made easier for Rorshache to escape, or that the punchiline with the little man can be made. There are other little twists and turns here that evade me sometimes, but that seems to be the most glaring. I'm sure it's no error, and maybe in a longer cut we will see what actually happened, but that just struck me as surprisingly odd.
Savvy
JE: I've been saying it all along: Some things are easier to accept in a comic-book universe than they are in a photorealistic one. Each movie creates its own world.
I saw Watchmen the other night and absolutely loved it. The film is ridiculously faithful to the book and when it strays, it finds the right paths to wander. It's unfortunate that this film will be scrutinized so heavily because what the movie accomplishes is to tell a story that is really original in the world of film. This is exactly why we go to the movies. If you are unfamiliar with the book and you go to see this film, you will come out with a completely different view of superhero films than you had before you went in. This is exactly what he comics accomplished over 20 years ago. The film won't just make you discuss the characters and situations of Watchmen but it'll change the way you view other superheroes and superhero movies as well. How can that be viewed as anything other than a success?
The flaws, as I saw them, are nothing to be too picky about. That in itself, is amazing. The worst of it is the section of the film from when Rorschach lands in jail through Dan and Laurie rescuing the people in the burning building. It isn't bad so much as the pacing is way off. Things feel rushed and the cutting back and forth between the two sequences feels choppy. However, this will hopefully be remedied when they recut the film with more footage.
On the whole, the film is overflowing with brilliant design work. The production looks fabulous... with one glaring problem. Everything with Ozymandius seems flat. From his costume design to his lair, the design work seems too cold. Where is the ego, the purple of royalty (outside of his suit in one scene). He looks more like a spaceman than a Greek god or Egyptian pharaoh. I'll live.
Also, the deaths of millions doesn't feel like millions. Unfortunately, I don't expect that this wil be improved upon in the director's cut. In the book, we are given the image of dead, bloodied bodies covering every square foot in a New York street scene. In the film, it's more of a nuclear style devastation, leaving more visual destruction to the city rather than it's citizens (other than the people we see die on the initial strike). I think this sequence could really benefit by showing us a wider array of locales with people being annihilated while doing all of the various things that people do. I could see a dark room turn to blinding light as a couple making love is incinerated. The same blinding light raining over a person in business attire in an office, a person sitting on the john, stuck in traffic... you name it. A montage of more people doing people things would have made the destruction a lot more personal and given the ending more weight.
Hallelujah - gratuitous but not awful. Might have seemed worse if I hadn't heard about it before I saw the film. Otherwise, I really loved the use of music throughout the film. I'm really surprised that it worked but it did. There's a great amount of energy that the rock and pop songs breathes into the film. The poppy synth line in 99 Luftballons and especially Hendrix's cover of All Along the Watchtower (sorry, but no way it should have been Dylan there; I've always heard Hendrix when I read the book) are just fantastic touches in the film. Without these risky musical bits, the film might have felt a little less momentous (ala the first two Harry Potter pictures where I felt like I was just being led on a tour, room by boring room).
I have to disagree with any reviewer who found the performances lacking. Jim pointed out the key element here: these actors delivered lines that aren't anything if not stylized. This isn't neo-realism. The script toned down most of the double meanings between words and images but it didn't otherwise eliminate the general flavor of Moore's writing. That essence is a large part of what made Watchmen seem so unfilmable. And yet, Moore's voice is still there. The words aren't really changed. Snyder really did an amazing job of understanding how to keep that language and translate into something that would play well on screen. And that couldn't have been accomplished without the fine actors who delivered the lines (in no way is this the stilted delivery of Natalie Portman in Star Wars I-III; so uncharacteristic for her). These characters seem more human than most characters found in superhero films. If we can praise Robert Downey Jr. for his ability to deliver Tony Stark's lines with a flair that is far from realistic (but utterly fantastic), why aren't we praising Watchmen's actors for delivering the absurd as if it were ordinary?
I'm really looking forward to speaking with somebody who has seen the film but not read the book. It never occurred to me how much Watchmen's narrative is like that of Citizen Kane until I saw the film. We are constantly looking backward, through various sets of memories, in order to find out who these people are. There is a tone of information that is conveyed and so much of it is done visually or through dialog that is situational rather than expository. The timeline and point of view is constantly jumping around and the film expects us to keep up. How much of this will a newbie soak in and will it be enough to resonate rather than confuse?
Ted: go spend your ten bucks. Even if you don't end up loving the film, I don't see how you ten bucks would be wasted. A film this ambitious, audacious, and unique deserves your money. Yes, it is extremely violent, but not without purpose. The book was violent as well but the film takes it up a notch. I've read in some interview somewhere that they ramped it up because the violence in the book (shocking in it's day) was too typical for today; in order to match the effect of the violence in the book in 1985, they had to amp it up. I think they made the right choice.
I had a similar reaction to Watchmen, in terms of anticipating what would happen next. Having read the graphic novel, I knew what was going to happen (and correctly guessed the new ending), but I still found it fascinating to watch the events unfold on the screen. This hasn't happened much with me when I see film adaptations. I usually have to see them again to fully appreciate them. They usually work the first time when I haven't read the source material in a while (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban). But Watchmen was still a terrific experience that worked on its own as a movie. The only other time this has happened to me was Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring.
By the way, I am one of those people who loves both Watchmen and Dark Knight.
Why don't you quote the reviews (from some of the most esteemed critics) in which not only the movie is panned, but the comic, and Alan Moore? Because those were the ones I liked. I can't believe you're buying into this crap. This a bad movie based on what was always a poorly written, childish, misguided comic. Dark Knight was thoroughly mediocre, and also misguided - yet - I would take it over Watchmen. At least one was written and directed by adults, for adults. Sorry I can't be 18 going on 40 or 40 going on 18. I just can't. The audience for this film is very very - 'select'.
"You don't feel (as I sometimes did in "TDK") that you're in the hands of a movie that just isn't very competently made."
Yes, I did. I thought it was very poorly directed, in fact, so I was surprised to read this sentence. Zack Snyder is now officially (as you would put it) on my "Life's Too Short" list.
I also hated the music. Every song choice felt obvious and cliched and on-the-nose. Movie set in the '80s? Oh, then we have to throw in "99 Luftballoons"! Maybe if I hadn't seen Boogie Nights, Grosse Pointe Blank and who knows what else, this might have seemed fresh.
I suppose that while I respect the book as a satire, I don't ever see it as descending into parody. Ozymandias is certainly a representation of those comic book characters with god complexes who feel it their duty to create utopias, but within the satirical context of the story I feel he is still meant to be taken seriously. Just as it is important to note the way Moore wrote the character, I find it equally important to pay attention to Gibbons's illustrations. Veidt's face is rarely one of half-opened eyes and smirked lips that convey intellectual pompousness and caricatured superiority. When he is guilty he looks guilty, and when he asks if he did the right thing, it is obvious that he means it.
In the book, it is difficult to guess the perpetrator. In the film, Ozymandias's smugness and condescension are dead giveaways. Even if it is an alternate world full of cultural references and deconstruction of obvious superhero cliches, I don't feel that is an excuse for creating a caricature that makes it easier to guess the villain and that practically incriminates him. The book never gave an opinion on who was right or wrong; it simply showed the extremes, but in the film I felt that Veidt was made out to be the villain.
And also, while most of this is my own opinions and I respect your view of the book as more of a satiric work than a dead serious one, I don't think it can be argued that the film was more gory. I don't recall the book ever using panels to close in on blood spurting from the secretary's leg when the assassin attempts to kill Veidt, nor do I recall any lingering on the massive blood splatters left behind when Manhattan kills a person. I don't recall young Walter Kovacs taking a big chomp out of the older boy's face. And also, and it's been a while since I've read it, there is no way the that scene that took place in front of Rorschach's jail cell was that played up in the book.
In the book, young Walter Kovacs DID bite the older boy's face, but the big guy in front of Rorschach's cell gets his throat cut (and the blood splatters on him just like the blood from the dog's head), not his arms severed. And while Dr. Manhattan does explode a couple of people, there are no pictures in the book of bloody limbs swinging from the ceiling. That seemed gratuitous--as did the Comedian at JFK's assassination and the lesbian kiss in the opening credits, events which are merely rumors in the book. Like those two additions, a lot of the movie was just too obvious for me. Plus I think the space squid is necessary. It's a Freudian nightmare (look at its sideways-slit eye and puckered mouth, and tell me I'm not the only one who sees the resemblence to a certain part of a woman's body) and has a psychic brain programmed to freak the hell out of the world. Dr. Manhattan as an otherworldly and sanity-threatening enemy doesn't even come close. One last thing--at the very end, the ketchup that drips onto the smiley face T-shirt makes an audible "Splorch!" sound. Again, too obvious, especially in light of the book's insistence on not using any "sound effects" like "Crash!" or "Boom!"
Paul--
Which esteemed critics are you speaking of? Please quote them, so I can explain why they, and you, are very silly. Thanks!
(somewhat vague but present spoilers below)
Jim said, "I'd say the comic gets off on mass slaughter more than the movie does, or the movie would have looked more like the gory, nauseating bug-battlefields of "Starship Troopers," a comparably bleak, sexual, violent satirical science-fiction comedy."
Maybe the comic gets off on the mass slaughter, but that wasn't the reaction I had while reading it. The series of horrendous, full-panel illustrations made me sick to my stomach, and helped put the conclusion in its proper perspective. I'm not saying they should have recreated the panels for the film, but nothing was done to really make us feel like millions of people died. We just got some flashy special effects shots. I suppose greater fans of the film than myself might claim that the special effects shots were meant to be flashy, in an ironic sort of way, but at some point the film needs to take the world it created seriously. As I said, I felt the concept of the ending was sharp, but not the execution.
I didn't think the ending was an improvement at all, and it's not about the squid. While I thought that most of the movie was competently adapted, I think that they really dropped the ball on the ending. First of all, as someone already mentioned, dropping out all of the "normal" characters and their sidestories meant that there was basically no human connectino to the death of millions in Manhattan. In the comic, we had followed the lives of all these people on the street corner for the entire story, and then watched them get snuffed out in an instant by a "superhero". There was no such connection in the movie.
Worse, by shifting the focus of the attack to Manhattan, it makes it seem like it's about him. That totally misses the point; the problem with these "heroes" is that they all think it's about them--they're monsters. The people of the world are just objects to them. Ozymandias is willing to kill anyone in order to accomplish what he thinks is necessary; Rorschach doesn't care what the consequences of his actions are, as long as the unrighteous (almost everyone in his book) suffer. And Dr. Manhattan doesn't even care about humanity--his judgment about human beings has been shown to be very suspect before. The ending shouldn't be about him.
They also unfortunately dropped the scene where Dan and Laurie, shocked by the carnage take time out to make love and celebrate their lives. Manhattan watches on and implicitly gives his blessing to their relationship. It's an important scene in the novel that gets to the heart of the humanity that the comic book wanted to focus on; it was dropped from a movie that mistakenly agrees with its monstrous heroes that it's all about them.
I have seen the film, and I for one find that reading threads like this help to define what I liked and what I disliked in this, or any other, film. Like LOTR, I think I need to see the film many more times before I stop comparing it to to book.
I agree with many of the comments above, and disagree with some. The music was great (especially the muzak "Everybody Wants to Rule the World"). I think that the purpose of using pop music in a picture like this, aside from the irony, is that it keeps the audience from distancing themselves too much from the film. If you can't believe some of these things COULD have happened, it looses some of its power.
My nitpicks are mostly small. Dan's not fat enough. Ozymandias isn't enough of a golden god figure. Laurie doesn't smoke, etc. Not worth arguing about, really.
I found that the ending is more believable from the logic established in the narrative. That being said, that is what makes Moores ending so powerful, since it comes out of nowhere and is barely believable. It shows what lengths Ozymandias goes to. The movie ending does feel like less of a cop-out, however.
In regards to Snyder, we have to remember that source is sometimes more valid than direction. For all of Frank Miller's brilliance, his work tends to lean towards ultra-voilent, style over substance, blood over brains, and 300 reflects this. Moores work has always been more thoughtful, paced, ironic, and haunting. The dichotomy between the two movies shows how much is Snyder, and how much is the source.
At the end of the day, TDK is a movie written based on a comic character. Watchmen is a movie based on a graphic novel. These are two very different things, and TDK had a lot more freedom in its adaptation that Watchmen did. I enjoyed them both.
My opinion, anyway...
Info for another Jeremy and Fei on one of my favorite films, Last Year at Marienbad: Lorber's region 1 disc has been out-of-print for a while, and can be obtained for $200 on Half.com. However, for that much money, you could buy a region-free player and the R2 DVD was superior anyway (although it does have burned-in English subtitles).
BUT all that will be irrelevant, when Criterion announces its new DVD of the film, expected in the summer. It hasn't been officially announced, but Renais met with Criterion and gave notes on the picture and audio back in December.
Jim,
I had my share of problems with the film, alongside several moments of appreciation. Rather than slog through all that, I'd like to mention one particular touch I haven't seen covered yet.
It struck me as strangely fortuitous how solidly Dr. Manhattan fell into the uncanny valley. I'm certain the filmmakers tried to make him as realistic as possible, but as technology can only go so far, even today, I was still put a bit off by subtle movements (or lack thereof) around his mouth, just little imperceptible things that told me "this is not human." To me, this only underlines the essential alienation we're supposed to feel from Manhattan - one of the most intriguing characters in both the book and the film.
At any rate, I look forward to more discussion of the film on its own merits - too many words have been spent comparing the book to the movie and vice versa. I mean, that's all well and good, but I think there's more to be seen here than simple contrast.
A final thought: do you think anyone will get this film? The audience I saw it with cheered, laughed and applauded at all the hyperviolence, which seems to me to be missing the point. They remained mostly bored and listless through the introspective parts, and quite a few of them actually called out insults at Dan Dreiberg for being "fat and ugly." Is this the movie's fault, or are people just that stupid? I think, sadly, it's a little bit of both.
I'm sorry if this isn't cricket, but, if it's okay to post this, here's a link to my review:
http://wwwbillblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/superhuman-crew.html
I wasn't that crazy about it, is the short version. Something I haven't seen anyone comment on (including myself) is the file on Ozymandias's computer screen labeled "Boys". Anyone else catch that?
I never read the novel or the comic book and just watched as a movie. I didn't really like it, honestly. Night Owl was a total rip off of Batman, for one. Second, what a coincidence that after Heath Ledger's Joker is so popular that another movie comes out with a character called Comedian? Get original.
Yeah, I noticed "boys". It certainly wasn't the only homoerotic touch re: Adrian Veidt.
I think I have, about, the opposite opinions as you about the direction of TDK and Watchmen. You seem to claim that both movies leave you pondering about things that happen off camera, but TDK "isn't competently made" while Watchmen "knows exactly what it's doing" and "respects your ability to put the parts together". I claim otherwise (sort of).
I would say that if Watchmen seems to know what it's doing, and that there's more going on between shots, it's because Allan Moore made a huge, dense, intelligent comic, and all the background is there, not because Zach Snyder is an exceptionally good crafter of movies.
Likewise with TDK, my impression was that Nolan had such a huge story to tell, that if he flashed "2+2" up on the screen, he was confident that he didn't have to waste time putting "4" up after it, he could move onto something else, and you can figure it out for yourself.
I saw the film on Wednesday, and as the graphic novel did reading it for the first time over the Holidays, it reshattered my childhood.
I don't have a lot to say about it right now...want to see it again...only that while I didn't enjoy it...it blew me away. I drove him shaking. But it's not meant to be "enjoyed". The violence is to distressing (Superhero's don't beat up guys like that, or use their BAM! POW! sounds when almost raping one of there own!!) and the satire is more thought provoking to a depressing level. I did however, like yourself Jim, smile with wide open eyes as the dual fists of Snyder and Moore beat me to a pulp.
The Ridley Scott influence is palpable. Quick tid-bit, not sure if anyone else pointed it out, but when the villain is sitting in front of his television screens and watching Night Owl and Rorschach approach his lair, the television to the right is playing Ridley Scott's 1984 Macintosh commercial! I saw it right away. The film reminded me from beginning to end of "Bladerunner".
>>
>"You don't feel (as I sometimes did in "TDK") that you're in the hands of a movie that just isn't very competently made."
>Yes, I did. I thought it was very poorly directed, in fact, so I was surprised to read this sentence. Zack Snyder is now officially (as you would put it) on my "Life's Too Short" list.
I agree with this guy, and I feel the exact opposite about The Dark Knight. There was a sense of deliberateness in the former (The Dark Knight, as this is getting all muddled), but the frenzied progression in "Watchmen" just seemed like the result of a blunt razor, hacking away at important bits and pieces, here and there - which is another problem I have with it. In the graphic novel, every plotline is important to the overall picture, and in removing and condensing the story how they did - because that's not the issue, in itself. A more competent director would've been able to have at least maneuvered his way around this in a more manageable fashion - it lapsed into incoherency a lot of the time, and when that wasn't the case, it was just unaffecting.
The two standout features of the film are Jackie Earl Haley, and Billy Crudup. I would see the film again just for them.
People seem to have a very trumped up idea of what the graphic novel was and is...almost like people who think "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy of books is flawless. Even Tolkien says he'd have changed things in the book...did anyone miss Tom Bombadill?
"Watchmen" the graphic novel is long, and laborious, and at times dull. The whole stranded at sea metaphor was pretentious. But as a whole, it effected deeply, to a point that I was literally shaking. To a great extent more than most stories have in recent years. The film for me, got rid of the literary excesses of the graphic novel and cut to the chase, while still keeping the deliberate pace of the comic. Both are equally as brilliant in my mind, and I think in years to come, more people will see that about the film, as they did about Ridley Scott's "Bladerunner".
Funny thing, growing up reading comics and looking up to a lot of the heroes in them, "Watchmen" makes me very depressed (in a good way), not because of all the people who die, but because of the way in which these people who are supposed to be better than we are, in no way are, nor do they necessarily try to be. They're too weak and flawed. It makes me extremely sad. But I could watch the film over and over again. That's the difference between Scott's "Bladerunner" and "Watchmen"...in the end, the "villain"...the copy of who we are...is more human than we could ever hope to be...and the "heroes" in "Watchmen"...more vicious than we would ever want.
If this film came out a year ago, I have a feeling it would have fit the nation's and public's mentality a little more appropriately.