Mit spoilers.
The movie is a solid B+. Frankly I felt like it was in the A range until the last 20 minutes which struck me as rushed and pointlessly unfaithful to the source material. That is, the "new" ending did not seem any less convoluted than the comic ending, while the stated goal of the filmmakers in changing the ending was to make it more easily comprehensible to movie audiences. The conclusion also lost a few points for rushing things ("Hold on, let me explain these crucial plot points while I'm punching you; the money people say this has to come in under 180 minutes"). The film started out at a great, leisurely pace which gave the characters time to interact whereas the conclusion was a trainwreck. The first cut of the film was supposedly close to five hours, and I can understand why. Personally I'd gladly have sat in the theater for an additional hour to see the climactic conspiracy developed more completely.
I have no idea who any of those actors are (I neither watch TV nor get out much in terms of movies these days) but I think they were all magnificent with the exception of Ozymandias, who seemed like a high school play actor following instructions far too literally ("Act…pretentious now. Furrow your brow.") Perhaps that is also a function of the fact that the film devoted almost no time at all to developing Veidt's personality, narcissism, and ambitions. If anything, this was the big flaw with the film. With copious amounts of screen time devoted to Rorschach, Dreiberg, Comedian, and a suprisingly good Silk Spectre, Ozymandias (and to a lesser extent Dr. Manhattan) was short-changed.
Although I have never said this about a film before and meant it, I am looking forward to a full-length uncut/director's edition of Watchmen on DVD. I understand that the casual moviegoer wouldn't put up with a film any longer than the theatrical cut, hopefully the option of a longer film will be made available to those who want it.
Jimbo says:
Solid review and I concur with most of your thoughts (though I thought that the Silk Spectre was a little stiff in the non-action scenes. Still, I think I'll probably go see it in IMAX before its run is complete…
FMguru says:
Seemed like a standard Hollywood adaptation thing, like V FOR VENDETTA, the first two HARRY POTTER movies, X-MEN, THE GOLDEN COMPASS, NARNIA, and TWILIGHT. A quick-march through a Cliff's Notes version of the plot, stopping every so often for a big effects-laden set piece.
Not a bad movie, but I'm not quite sure it was a good movie. I found myself wondering what someone who hadn't read the book would have thought of it, if any of it made any sense at all to them. Art production was good; I just might buy the Art of the Movie book. The casting was solid – Rorschach was excellent, Silk Spectre II was just fine (if not exactly the next Meryl Streep), the rest were various shades of OK. The worst part were the "real life" cameos, every one of which threw me out of the picture (Kissinger, Warhol, McLaughlin/Clift/Buchanan – though Nixon was OK, and I did spot the Village People outside Studio 54).
Zach Snyder's love for the source material shined was evident throughout, but I kept wincing from the hackishness of the direction. What was up with all that Grand Guignol bloodletting and severed limbs? Was it really necessary to watch that prisoner fry to death, or the fat henchman get his arms sawn off? And the music choices were handed down from Mount Obvious. The march of postwar history with The Times They Are A Changin? Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah for a sex scene (and the sex scenes looked straight our of Cinemax After Dark)? A Vietnam battle with Ride of the Valkyries playing? Philip Glass tracks from Koyanisqatsi? Really, Zach?
J. Dryden says:
With the exception of the use of Hallelujah, I thought that the music choices were meant to be deliberately overly familiar as a way of reminding us that this is an alternate world, and ushering us through it by signposts we recognize. So we see, for instance, Vietnam set to the same soundtrack as Coppola gave us, but instead of seeing Why We Lost, we see Why We Won, which helps us recognize What Went Differently by reminding us of the original version. Same with the Dylan–instead of ushering in an era of peace and love movements, the 60s gave us changes, but they were sinister and cynical, and we wound up with Nixon as president-in-perpetuity. So the choice is in many ways a deference to the members of the audience who *haven't* memorized the book (I am not one of these), helping through a world that we geeks are thoroughly familiar with, but they are not.
Just a quick defense of the soundtrack. Except for the Hallelujah, which has, in fact, been overused.
Nick says:
I was the only one in my group that went who had read the book before seeing the movie. The rest of them either liked the whole movie or didn't care for it until the end–precisely the opposite of my (and apparently your) reaction.
It was more disappointing because up until that point I thought that the filmmakers did a fantastic job of compressing an incredibly complex and detailed story while remaining faithful to the source. Sure, we didn't get the "comic book within a comic book", but we did get shots of the kid reading against the fire hydrant at the newsstand. As for FMGuru's complaint about the violence, I thought it was faithful to the book in that way–the graphic novel is extremely violent and to tone it down for the sake of making it more pleasant to watch would have missed the point. I also liked the opening montage, Dylan and all, but I thought some of the music (i.e. "All Along the Watchtower") sounded more like someone was going through their ipod picking songs they liked regardless of whether they really fit.
Rob says:
i thought the soundtrack was distractingly bad. if malin ackeman hadn't been nude during that fucking halleluah part i would have gotten vocally angry.
speaking of malin ackerman: she was terrible. remember her first scene where we see giant doc? good god, she spit out like a page worth of lines in like 32 seconds.