Wow.
I'm a fan of the graphic novel, so let me confess my bias right up front. But wow. What a great movie. No, scratch that. What a great adaptation of the book. Yes, Alan Moore, I said it. The <quote>unfilmable<un-quote> has been filmed, and Zack Snyder did a terrific job. The movie is about as faithful as it could be and still come in under 5 hours (way under 5 hours, it did). It is as beautiful a creation on celluloid today as Dave Gibbons' artwork was on paper back in the 80's. And the story is an earnest a representation of, I believe, Moore's every intention.*
Opinions on this movie will vary. I'm already reading a groundswell of criticism around staying too true to a story best left on the printed page. Sure. I get that. But Snyder had a heck of a challenge in creating something to appeal to the uninitiated yet also appease the rabid fanbase. I think he did an admirable job. It would have been, perhaps, a better movie if it were streamlined a little more, but it would have lost something precious along the way.
If you're a fan of the graphic novel, I recommend it. If you're curious and can handle some extreme violence, I recommend it. And if so, go see it in the theater. Visually, it's one of the most stunning movies I've seen since... I don't know when.
For the uninitiated, here's a brief summary of the plot, which will help you make sense of the convolutions going on but won't give anything away:
In 1985, an alternate America has won the Vietnam war, with Richard Nixon still in the White House, and now the world is on the brink of nuclear disaster. The cold war is being tracked by a doomsday clock who's minute-hand inches towards midnight at each new threat. Midnight will toll with the assumed imminent launch of tens of thousands of nuclear missiles aimed at destroying the world several thousand times over. The movie starts with the clock reading just a few minutes to midnight.
The Vietnam War was won thanks to Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), a former physicist who was caught in an experiment which disintegrated him down to the molecular level but gave him with the ability to change matter at will (including his own, thankfully, as he put himself back together again into the rather impressive form of a large, blue, glowing naked man with relatively little modesty) including the ability to see his own future, who stepped into the rice paddies and blasted the Vietcong into smithereens in six days, giving us our victory.
The Russians see him as a threat, the coldness of a cold war depending on a stalemate between the two superpowers, something difficult to maintain when the other side has a demigod keeping watch, and they continue to stockpile their nukes higher and higher assuming that he could stop perhaps 99% of all of their simultaneously launched missiles, but even the 1% left would destroy the bulk of the U.S. well enough.
Aside from Dr. Manhattan, costumed vigilantes are outlawed. Apparently there has been a rash of them since World War II, starting with a group known as the Minutemen formed in the 30's to clean up the prohibition-era streets and help stop crime, regular men and women without any superpowers at all (except an innate ability to kick ass) but a common goal to right wrongs and help protect (if not serve). One of them was the Comedian, a larger-than-life character with no moral center; a questionable one, at best.
One by one the Minutemen are retired, something that was woven into scenes throughout the entire graphic novel, but which Snyder cleverly condensed into a brilliant series of flashbacks during the opening credits (with Bob Dylan's The Times They Are A-Changin' playing in the background), and now, in the relatively more modern era, a new group of costumed heroes called the Watchmen has formed. Modern times means modern criminals and perhaps a more modern approach to vigilante justice, and the Watchmen became a little too enthusiastic in their pursuits, prompting the oft-graffiti'd phrase displayed on walls in the background: "Who watches the Watchmen?" Thus the ban on costumed heroes.
(Naked blue supermen tilting the balance of the cold war in America's favor: notwithstanding.)
The Watchmen are/were:The movie starts with the Comedian, now in his 60's and ostensibly retired, being violently thrown through the plate glass window of his high-rise apartment followed by Rorshach's investigation into his murder, and unfolds as an interlocking series of plots that culminate in a philosophical battle for the survival of all mankind. Seriously. I won't give anything away more than that, but yeah, seriously.
- Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson) who no longer flies his owl-ship through the night looking for evil-doers but has grown bored in his civilian life, and soft because of it
- Ozymandias (Matthew Goode), the self-proclaimed "world's smartest man," now a billionaire trying to eliminate human dependency on fossil fuels
- Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman), a.k.a. Dr. Manhattan's girlfriend, who find her life unfulfilled living with someone who views human existence no more or less altered by such trivial matters as life and/or death
- Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), the last remaining vigilante who gives fuck-all about the outlawed nature of his mask, continues to fight crime in the shadows of the night
One word of caution to those uninitiated (probably scant few reading these pages): don't go in expecting the Justice League or the X-Men. This isn't a story about superheroes, per se, but a story about extraordinary people (most of whom are innately ordinary at the molecular level) in extraordinary times. And for you chillun's out there too young to remember the 80's, those huge glasses that Patrick Wilson wears were once stylish. Deal with it.
* Moore, being the complete dick that he is (see my ramblings about him back at the bottom of my review of this movie) won't watch it, so we'll never know. But I truly believe Snyder wanted to honor the man's work to the very best of his ability.



6 comments:
I don't really think Snyder could have done much better with adapting this. While there are a lot of people upset about the changes to the specifics of things at the end, they did a good job of making something far less confusing but still fitting what was needed. (Not exactly easy to discuss without spoiling anything for people who haven't seen or read yet, but you know what I'm trying to say...I hope.)
Exactly. He removed the WTF? factor from the ending - which isn't a knock on the graphic novel but certainly something that might only work in the comic - and still stayed true to the central theme.
I've read that some people are pissed that he took the Black Freighter piece out. But that would have seriously detracted from the flow of the movie. In the comic, you can read two story lines at once and go back and forth between pages to recap where you were. You can't do that in a movie theater. It think filming it as a separate piece to be distributed alongside was the visual equivalent of that Moore did in the graphic novel.
Moore may be a dick, but I can respect where his principles lie. Unlike, say, Frank Miller...
So true. He's a dick but an uncompromising genius, the Rorschach of the graphic novel community (if you will).
Miller, on the other hand, I can't even speculate on what he's thinking. Now he's a director?
Well, not having seen the flick nor ever having read the comic book, I can't judge it, but I did get a kick out of the writer Lucius Shepard's critique of it, which can be summed up in his one word comment, "Swatchmen."
To read the full review and ensuing commentary, check out the blog:
http://community.livejournal.com/theinferior4/454248.html
By the way, Shepard's one of my favorite writers. His latest novella - Vacancy - won this year's Shirley Jackson Award. It shipped to distributors a few days ago. I'm not sure if it's on the shelves yet, but if you're checking him out for the first time, I recommend The Best Of Lucius Shepard - especially for the story "The Jaguar Hunter." (He's also the guy who wrote Life During Wartime.)
And he lives right down the street from me!
Merci
PS - Apologies in advance if this posts twice - I'm having some Friday the 13th interference.
Interesting review. The guy can string together a pretty sentence, I'll give him that much. He's a good writer, which I can always appreciate. I might check out his fiction despite his bile-dribbling on a story I love and a film I enjoyed.
On that note: it's clear he either has not read the original graphic novel and/or is simply not a fan. Not every movie made is going to appeal to everybody who watches it, and this one is no exception. It will have its detractors, some of them better editorialists than others. But a couple lines in his treatise stand out as particularly preachy:
What =Watchmen= needed was a director who could reinvent the comic, not just transpose it...
Really? Was that what it needed? I don't think so. It's a tribute to the fans who love the comic while at the same time trying to reel in a demographic as-yet un-introduced. It's not a large demographic. Shepard probably hits that nail on the head, but I don't fault the film for trying to appeal to that group. Who else was it going to appeal to? Soccer moms? Retired baby boomers? Fantasy/Sci-Fi writers? Clearly not.
Despite a few scenes that work and some striking visuals, =Watchman= fails on almost every level...
Really? Almost every level? That's harsh, dude. Harsh. While I'll admit it has some failings, I think it succeeds on many more than not. However if you go in looking for failings, then perhaps that's all you'll see.
Your down-the-street neighbor/writer's opinions aside, I think you'd like the graphic novel, if you have any stomach for the medium at all. We never touched on the subject previously, so I don't know if you're a fan of that style of story-telling. Thus I say that with the requisite caveat emptor attached. If you know of a library nearby (ha ha) I might suggest you check it out.
Personally, I left actual "comic books" behind with puberty, but much later in life I've discovered a treasure-trove in the graphic novel form. Does that make me an "adult clinging to (my) adolescence"? I hardly think so. There are some very smart people doing very good work in this field. There are stories to be told that benefit from a visual additive, and there are some really good artists pairing up with good writers to tell them.
They aren't all superhero novels, either, by the way. Sure, the form evolved from its "Amazing Adventures of Super Wonder Person with Powers Beyond Belief!" ragtag cousins, but you don't have to look far and wide to find really serious stories told in drawn panels across a page. I don't consider Watchmen to be a superhero story, either. That's one of my few beefs with the movie, but I let it go and decided to enjoy it anyway.
I can't argue that Time Magazine was "throwing the geeks a bone" when it awarded this novel a place on its top 100 list - seems a conflict of interest as the parent company owned the rights, or thought they did - but they certainly chose a good representative of the form's growing artistry in a field dominated by simple print since the invention of paper. I seriously doubt you could find "a hundred better novels written by authors whose surnames start with the letter Z" but if you were close-minded to the medium you'd have no trouble at all cutting it from that top 100 list and finding something else equally grand to fill in.
The graphic novel gets short shrift by people who clearly think it's an inferior form of literature, probably not even worthy of being associated with real literature at all. It can't be etched out solo by a lonely guy with a typewriter (probably with a bottle of scotch somewhere in the poorly lit room where it's always raining), thus not worthy of serious attention.
But I like to keep a more open mind. There's more out there to discover than is dreamt of in a single philosophy (to paraphrase the bard) and I like to see what else is out there. As a graphic novel, Watchmen is superb. As a movie it works. I'll save my own bile-dribbling for movies that don't.
Post a Comment