Watchmen’s end credits are rolling, and suddenly the cinema erupts into cheering. I immediately felt that there must be something wrong with me for not wildly enjoying this film. These feelings were cemented upon my meeting a few friends outside the cinema. They told me of how the film was “flawless”, “a masterpiece” and how I must be so ignorantly stupid for my not fully appreciating this film and that my disappointment was evidence of my “not liking of films that require thinking”. How could a fantastic graphic novel produce a lacklustre film?
This is maybe where the confusion for my fan-boy friends lies. Surely if it’s almost exactly the same then great comic= great movie. I’m afraid that this isn’t the case with Watchmen.
Don’t get me wrong, the film is well made, sporadically brilliant, but I was just bored to tears by most of it. Occasionally the film was fantastic, the opening assassination of The Comedian and the opening titles were brilliant. But after this strong opening, the film’s pace slows and becomes rather plodding. The alternate American timeline and great pop culture moments of the 20th century were all splendidly reconstructed, but there was little in the way of the
characterization or deep psychological nuances of the graphic novel. This film suffers from the 20 years in development hell and the impossible anticipation that such a time scale generates. “Watchmen” was so hyped to the point of lunacy that any mumbles of “it’s not that great” would be drowned out by the enthusiasm of the fans.
The basic problem with the film is that it sticks too closely to the storyline of the original material. I was struck by a strange sense of deja vu watching Zack Snyder’s incredibly faithful adaptation. This is possibly due to the fact that the film is copied almost entirely verbatim from the comic. This is an unusual film in that is requires a fair knowledge of the source material, but in having this knowledge it also robs the film of any tension or audience engagement. What works so well in the comic doesn’t necessarily work on the silver screen. It was a mistake not to slightly rework the comic’s structure into a more film-friendly narrative. The film is meandering, flabby and self-important, getting bogged down in endless exposition and shifts in tone. With the exception of Jeffery Dean Morgan’s ‘The Comedian’ and Jackie Earle Haley’s ‘Rorschach' I felt the other characters were incredibly dull and whiny. Moore & Gibbons’ story was so rooted in the fears of nuclear extinction at the hands of Soviet/American warfare that now in the 21st century it the film seems quaint, out of touch and old-fashioned. Nuclear war was so 1980s. A less strict adaptation would have benefited the film greatly; one that deals with the themes and issues of the original but in a more relevant setting.
I might be wrong, committed Watchmen fans shout me down if you feel the need, but at least this is a mainstream comic-book film that can provoke such debate.
Not a bad film, but a missed opportunity. * * *
3 comments:
...I don't remember calling you ignorantly stupid...
Good point, anyway, and after my initial relief that Watchmen wasn't horrible I'm beginning to have mixed feelings about it too.
I think the Paul Greengrass version might have been more interesting after all, he planned to set the story in this time, taking more liberties with it.
But of course this would have drawn huge criticism from the fans. Maybe someone should have just written another movie that worked better, and left the comic as the masterpiece it is.
That's bullshit.
Watchmen is a graphic novel that is difficult, slow paced and requires repeat readings to get the full scope of it. Unlike all comic books that preceded it.
The movie works in exactly the same way. If you want something faster and easier you can watch Iron Man, just as you could read Iron Man if you felt the GN was difficult.
Nuclear war is 80's??? Yeah, and I'm sure everyone has totally disarmed their warheads and singing peace songs with each other...
Lets make this clear: it was other friends of mine that said these things to me.
All I know is that i loved the graphic novel and didn't have a problem with the complexity of it's story, but found myself wishing that the film matched the originals greatness. Instead I just felt that it didn't allow for viewer interpretation, not everything needed to be explained through endless exposition.
And as to my flippant comment on nuclear war, it just seems that that was the only issue confronting the world of Watchmen. Since the 80s, many other issues other than just nuclear war have came about. What about international terrorism, economic depression and enviromental distaster, I felt the film could have touched on these issues briefly. The book works as it was written in an era of Soviets, Reagan and Thatcher and so can be viewed as a comment on the fears of the time. But that was 20 years ago and so the film felt like a time capsule for mid-80s paranoia.
Still love the book, still unsure of the film.
Post a Comment