Movie Review: Watchmen (2009)
Unfortunately, there isn't much to get excited about
Photo: Warner Bros.
I can't say I was ever bored while I sat through 161 minutes of Watchmen, but I can say I was never really entertained. In keeping so faithful to the Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons celebrated graphic novel director Zack Snyder's adaptation (or should I say damn near page-for-page reproduction) flat lines with barely a heartbeat to speak of. So much attention was paid to visuals and creating an accurate reproduction of the source material the film forgets to connect to the audience as the characters in Watchmen mumble, grumble and groan from scene to scene as the multilayered '80s comic is now a paint-by-numbers fanboy fetish film.
The film is set in an alternate history where costumed superheroes were once accepted as vigilante law, but have since been outlawed. Richard Nixon is the President of the United States and he has just been re-elected for a third term and the threat of nuclear war with Russia is imminent. One time costumed heroes have retired, gone into hiding, are working for the government and some have even been killed. The film dissects these events in telling the stories of what happened while exploring the mystery of what is to come.
The cast includes Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley, Matthew Goode, Billy Crudup, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Malin Akerman, Stephen McHattie, Carla Gugino and Matt Frewer. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"Watchmen" is a Warner Bros. release, directed by Zack Snyder and is rated R for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language.
It's hard to find a complaint with the acting; although I still hold to the fact Matthew Goode wasn't right for the role of Adrian Veidt (aka Ozymandias). Goode doesn't have the power or the presence to pull off the role. Veidt is a man considered the smartest man on the planet and one that's even compared to Alexander the Great. Goode comes off as weak, skinny and fragile making his performance seem like an act rather than a natural reflex, and it weighs heavily on the climax of the film.
The only characters you ever care a lick about are Rorschach, played perfectly by Jackie Earle Haley, and The Comedian, with which Jeffrey Dean Morgan did just about as good as you could expect. However, the characters played by Malin Ackerman and Patrick Wilson are hollow vessels — through no fault of the actors — and Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan, while performed well, just gets in the way. Manhattan is the emotionless "super" man of the film and other than serving as a source for glossy special effects he is only good for one scene near the end of the picture yet too much time is dedicated to his character, which worked much better on the page than it does on the big screen.
Watchmen comes with a soundtrack of '80s songs that are truly terrible in terms of fitting in with the tone of the film even though they serve the period of which it's set. The musical cues are corny, loud and entirely out of place as they make way for their climax as Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" plays over what may be the worst sex scene ever filmed. Watchmen is a fanboy's true fantasy as characters from their favorite comic now walk and talk and it all comes with boobies as what should be a tender moment is turned into some softcore railing.
Strangely enough, considering the long and treacherous road Watchmen took to get to the big screen, it plays like a movie that could have been made 10-15 years ago. A lack of technology may have actually helped the picture since more focus would have been placed on story rather than on effects.
Filmed adaptations are called adaptations for a reason. Not everything on the page will work in a movie and when that is the case it must be changed to fit the medium. Perhaps this would have meant making a modern version of the story and an added dose of emotion from more than just one character. Sure, fans had their hearts set on seeing Nixon, and Dr. Manhattan shaking hands with John Kennedy, but maybe a third term for W. and a hand-shake with H.W. is what the film needed. Instead of Vietnam make it Desert Storm; have Manhattan capture Saddam while the North Koreans prepare for nuclear war. As I was watching it was easy to see parallels, but wouldn't it have been more relevant if these parallels were made using an alternate history of today's society as opposed to one from 25 years ago?
This is just an idea and one way I can think of to help an audience connect to a story that seems distant and pointless. Fact is it just didn't work for me, but I would be robbing you of a potential great experience if I didn't urge you to go see it and judge for yourself as I am sure there will be those that disagree with me completely.
Showing 66 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New CommentNOTE: The Facebook login option has been disabled. We apologize for any inconvenience. |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Gossssshh…..
that's so disappointing..
I am a die-hard fan and I love and adore the book… but this is just to saad…
i cant bring myself to read this before seeing the movie…
Never read the book, but I'm seeing the movie tonight at midnight. I hope the story will at least be interesting to me, although after "300" I have no faith in Snyder's abilities as a director. Visionary my ass.
@Scott M: What are you talking about? 300 was an excellent movie although the effects were a bit cheesy. I'm hopefully going to see Watchmen on Sunday, so I will definitely come back and give my opinion.
I seriously hope you are wrong.
I'm going to the midnight premiere with a ton of friends and I will definitely sign off when I get home.
xoxo,
ty
@TrainDozer:
I dont know, Im with Scott here. Never before have I been so bored watching a movie with so much going on. I absolutely hated 300.
On topic, Im gonna see Watchmen, having never read the graphic novel…we'll see. Though Brad's reviews pretty frequently coincide with my views on movies, so…
@TrainDozer: The effects were the only good part of that piece of shit gay snuff film called 300.
I've been worried about Watchmen for a few weeks now as I heard more and more people say how incredibly faithful it was. This was clearly code for those with Watchmen sheets on their bed that they'll love it, but for the rest of the world who consider the graphic novel to be an enjoyable way to pass the time, but certainly nothing deep, it set off all sorts of alarms that this movie has the potential to be a disaster. Having read the book and only enjoyed it (this cult worship simply proves the lack of intelligence of the average comic book fanboy) the last thing I wanted to hear was how faithful it was consider how pathetically awful the ending was. I heard it was changed which is good, but for this story to work as a movie it could not have been done faithfully. They did and I think the movie will open strong, but flame out because of it.
I have to admit this movie does seem way too long, but I still think it'll be good.
I am glad I'm read the graphic novel though; direct adaptations of anything is not ever a good idea.
This movie probably will underpreform, or bomb. It's way too long (should've been split into two, or even three potentially) and is R. Both those are hurting factors.
Way to long? "Che" finally made it to KC, and the paper said 4:17 minutes. Who in the world funded a 4 hour movie and expects it to make it's money back?
A much lower review than I expected, but I cant wait to see this nonetheless.
Somehow I agree with brad`s review.
i haven`t seen it yet since apparantely they don`t get released at march 6th.
But from so many clips, trailers, and the background story. It does, waaaaayyyyy to big to be fitted into one movie.
There are two possibilities now. Sure, it will dominate box office for this week but if the most of audience are agree with brad so it will have a quite major downfall at box office chart in second week of it`s release.
I still hope that i will enjoy it since this is the first major blockbuster film of 2009.
Can`t wait it to be released soon in Indonesia.
In the mean time, enjoy it guys.
Regards from Indonesia
I love seeing this hate towards 300 cause i really didnt like that movie at all! Plus i had a feeling this film would be overacted and filled with sex (in all his last movies there is doggy style sex he needs to work in porn rather than action) plus you do know that if there wasnt any slomo this movie and 300 would be alot shorter and maybe more easy to sit through
I JUST SAW WATCHMEN. I got back from the midnight showing a few minutes ago.
I loved the graphic novel, and it was quite literally in most areas a frame-by-frame and line-by-line reproduction of the novel.
Some of the dialogue is put in different places. But in general, it is like watching the book on a screen.
I enjoyed it for that alone. I thought it was a seriously well done movie. People say how faithful it was was it's downfall, but if other novel adaptations [*coughs*Twilight*coughs*] had been more faithful to the source material they would have resulted in a far superior movie.
I loved it, though at times it did seem rather long, and I plan on seeing it a few more times before the extended version on DVD.
xoxoxo,
Ty
Just returned from the the midnight showing as well. As a person who has read the novel several times, I was hoping for an amazing movie, though expected to see a poor representation. We got a little of both here. The movie without a doubt captured the feel of the novel, but the beauty of the novel was what was missing from the movie. Details. Connections, images, and themes that reaccured throughout the novel were aptly missing from the movie. They did a nice job with the movie, I really did enjoy it, but it wasnt a fair representation for those who haven't read it. The directing was ok, but the thing that pissed me off the most was the soundtrack. Seriously? Opening with Bob Dylan? it seemed to be an after thought, and to that degree the movie was not complete. All in all, a good movie, but not even close to the perfection that was the graphic novel.
Mark me down under: completely disagree.
I pretty much 100% agree with this review….I'd probably give it a lower rating actually. Those musical cues were awful, why is Sound of Silence playing at a sociopath's funeral? And Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah being played over a sex scene…fucking awkward as hell.
What a waste of what I'm sure is good source material. Snyder has no talent.
Definately disagree
Any chance you people disagreeing can bring something to the table outside of a couple of words? Perhaps open up a line of dialogue?
I would love to hear differing opinions as I am sure so would everyone else. Simply saying you disagree is a waste of time without helping other people know why.
"may be the worst sex scene ever filmed"
Worse than the one in Shoot 'Em Up?
I think I should be glad I don't know the graphic novel and therefore might enjoy this movie more easily. No expectations.
How much has the hype beforehand hightened expectations of the public? I think with Brad not so much as he wasn't a fan (or a hater) of the graphic novel.
As for Snyder, I loved 300 and that was because of the cheesiness and the style it was portrayed in. It wasn't a great movie by far but the combo was immensly enjoyable.
Copying the style of the source material bit for bit however means you're not a visionary. If the style was visionary than it was the person who first made it, not the one copying it to a different medium.
I saw the film and i have to disagree with the rating. I would give it a B at LEAST.
I found the music a little innapropriate at times, but overall compelling.
I bought the book and read it in 2 days before seeing the movie, and i knew the book would be better so i lowered my expectations of the movie to enjoy it better. And boy was i correct in doing so.
The movie was a lot better than i would expect after reading this review. I did not find the sex scene terrible, and i liked the way the movie was shot. Much of the dialogue was directly copy-pasted into the movie and i liked that. Overall, i obviously found the book better, but the movie was a lot more faithful, enjoyable and watchable than this review let on, and i would probably go as high as a B+ rating for it, maybe even an A-.
@Brad Brevet: They can't because they probably haven't seen the movie yet and are just angry you didn't mess your jeans over the movie like they will simply from seeing the title come up.
@Brad Brevet: I'll be seeing Watchmen tonight, so I can't offer an opinion as to the film's quality, but do you believe Fired Up! (C+) is overall, a better film than Watchmen (C-)?
I local reviewer for my paper (KC Star) is an older guy and he had it at 3 1/2 (out of four) stars and said it's the best superhero movie ever.
@Steve: And your point would be?
Guess you probably didn't get a chance to watch Billy Crudup on The Daily Show last night. For one thing Billy tells Jon, "Don't take your child to see this movie, he's not old enough, you're not old enough and no one is old enough. I was in this film and I'm not comfortable seeing it." He clearly has a very dry sense of humor but I don't find any sarcasm in his voice. However, he is very funny in the interview.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220278&title=billy-crup
People do not know what they want anymore I have to say….if something is faithful to the original, then they hate it….if its not faithful, they hate it too…I am sure if Zack Snyder went for something different we would probably still see a C+ anyhow
It really is a hard movie to critique…some of the top critics rated it high and some of the top critics rated it low — it really comes down to tastes. It was by no means a bad movie whatsoever, and it would be a lie to call it so, but for its not the right cup of tea for some people, and would therefore be a disappointment for those people.
I have been reading some mini-reviews in magazines giving it a failing mark but without justifying their reasons as to WHY exactly they thought the movie was bad. I think as long as you can say why, then you have legit reasons for not liking it, but I still don't think that it is by any stretch a 'bad movie', you can tell there was a considerable amount of effort put into the movie by both the cast and crew for it to be a horrible movie like some critics are calling it.
If you can stand through long movies, give it a try and judge it for yourself
I personally enjoyed it, but I myself like philosophical scenes and dialogue, crazy (and sometimes ALMOST campy) superhero fights and some of the crazy concepts that come along with the story to the big screen. But that's just me.
@Laura: You made a thoughtful, intelligent post, but then you said to call it a bad movie would be a lie. If whether you like the movie is based on "personal tastes" as you so correctly put it, how can you turn around and contradict yourself by saying anyone who thinks it's a bad movie is lying?
@rattler76: I didn't like Shoot 'Em Up at all, but the answer to your question is … Yes.
@Laura: Don't people's opinions on all movies come down to taste?
@Chris C.: That isn't how grading movies works considering comparing the two movies based on that alone is silly. That's why looking at grades is really the worst thing anyone can do with a review, the grade doesn't matter at all.
However, I had a more enjoyable time at the theater watching Fired Up than I did watching Watchmen.
@Brad Brevet: "That’s why looking at grades is really the worst thing anyone can do with a review, the grade doesn’t matter at all."
They why is it that so many reviewers mention a movie's Metacritic score and Freshness Rating if the grades don't matter?
Why grade at all if the grades don't matter?
@oldskool138: Short answer, because people expect it and look for it. However, this is off topic and best left for another time. Let's stick to discussing the movie.
Just saw it and I loved it. How anyone can say it's a bad film or a mess is beyond me. When this film was being made all everybody talked about was how Zack Snyder should be completely faithful to the book, set it in the 80's etc… that's exactly what he did and now everybody is slating him for it! I feel sorry for the guy, I thought he did a great job and I loved every second of it. I never listen to critics anyway, absolutely pointless just make up your own mind. Setting this film in the present day is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Brad to Dan: Really? The stupidest thing ever? Do you go around with your fingers in your ears?
Woo man. Okay the Veidt thing is true. The guy they got to play for him was a good actor but not right for the role. I thought all of the other cast members were perfect, especially Dr. Manhattan. He nailed that role. The sex scene wasn't all that bad. They could have shortened it a lot to put in things like the explanation of why Veidt is so badass (they just say over and over that he's the smartest man), or how about the murder of the first Nightowl (which was not in the movie at all). As for your idea of modernizing it I have one question. When did you start using crack?
I'd give it a B. If it weren't for the miscasting and lack of detail around Veidt's character, an A-.
@Vernum: Is Dr. Manhattan almost pure CGI? It's Billy Crudup's voice but otherwise animation. Yes?
@malevolentmuse: Okay man. You don't like comics don't read them and don't leave comments on movies made from graphic novels like you the boss of comics. Then, if you do, don't insult readers of graphic novels. I read it just before talk of the movie and it is what inspired me to start writing comics. I'm also friend with several other people that love the graphic novel, and their levels of intellect would make you feel like your time would be better spent flipping burgers and masturbating yourself to sleep. Cause your just that inferior.
@Vernum: Dude, seriously, if you expect us to think you do anything not involving sweeping up after manual laborers with that kind of grammar you are kidding yourself. You sounded like an illiterate tard in that post.
First, I didn't say I don't like comics. I said I didn't like the ending of this one because up until that ridiculously pathetic ending it was pretty good, but I wouldn't call it intellectual. What I don't like are people just like yourself who try to make it sound as though there is something rapturous about a comic book: there isn't. It's pretty colors on a page. There is no brilliance and there is no hidden metaphorical importance. Anyone who sees anything beyond that, yourself included, seriously needs to get their priorities straight. Why can't you just admit you like it for what it is and stop trying to give it some sort of intellectual weight? It's a friggin' comic book, dude! It's okay to like them without making it seem like you're reading War and Peace.
@Scott M: Hallelujah is about making love and a girl having her first orgasm. As for the funeral, read the graphic novel. They humanize him more in it.
Brad to Vernum: Telling someone to read the graphic novel in order to enjoy a movie is flawed thinking. A movie should be available to exist on its own and if it doesn't there is something wrong.
@malevolentmuse: It's art!!! It's creativity!!! It's not about the medium the story and situations are in, it's about the story and situations themselves. Viewing a specific medium incapable of expressing an idea that others can is close-minded and ignorant. "A comic can't be deep cause it's a comic," is about as sturdy an argument as trying to defend bigotry or George Bush. My typos were the result of over anxiousness to defend my fellow comic lovers and myself. I'm sorry if you felt threatened, but you can expect that sort of retort when insulting people.
@Vernum: I simply meant that his character is better understood in the novel. If you want to know why he put that song, it may help you understand if you read it.
@Patricia: Mostly CG yes, but it looks like they put CG over his actual face. It feels pretty organic, or as organic as a glowing blue, nuclear man can feel lol.
off topic, but, Brad, have you ever seen the movie Magnolia? and, if so, what'd you think of it? My favourite movie.
@Mason: Yes, and liked it, but haven't seen it for a LONG time and have actually been meaning to watch it.
ok, Is it worth seeing? I think the genral idea you guys have is close enough for me to judge a film. I planned on seeing it tonight, but after hearing all the reviews, not sure anymore. If it is, I'll go see it Saturday.
Taking all the negatives and positives into acount, on both sides, wether you thought it was good or bad, is it worth seeing? And paying $10 to see.
@Justin: I would say it is definitely worth seeing and making a judgment on for yourself. It's one of those films that should be experienced in the theater, like it or not…
i read the book loved it, saw the movie, loved it. the ending was a bit disappointing but the giant squid woulda been awkward and too hard to make believable or even remotely good.
The more I read reviews of this, the more I'm content to wait for the DVD, with whatever extras they might happen to include (maybe it'll feature Alan Moore making silly animal balloons or something…)
Hey Brad, I got a question.
Have you read the book?
@sebastian: Yes I have.
@Brad Brevet: good. I definitley recommend it. 3 hours and I've seen it 6 times. Also, I don't know if you've ever answered this before, but what's the worst movie you've ever seen? or one of the worst…
well i went too see it with high hopes, and was i dissapointed, what aload of rubbish, this wasnt a film i would be afraid of watching, i love complicated science fiction, but this lact so much i wanted to walk out, and the fact it was over 3 hours or what ever…was like torture, i guess this was gonna be one of the worst films this year iv seen, gran torino being the best so far,
i want my moneyback dammit
The movie was way too long…the build-up lasted 1.5 hours and the end lasted for 1 hour. It never actually started and it ended like ten times.
@Ty:
Dude, "Twilight" WAS faithful to the source material. Read the book and watch the movie, then you'll be able to see just how well the film captured just how stupid, corny and idiotic the book is (even though both the film and book are two of my most guilty pleasures).
Yeah, I liked Watchmen a lot, but it doesn't even touch "The Dark Knight" in terms of comic book movies, and it ended up just making me really want to read "Watchmen" the novel again.
I just don't think that Watchmen can completely work on film. A lot of what they took out so that the film would be "mainstream" kinda made the source material so great. Granted, Laurie wasn't a fully-fleshed out character in the novel, but she ESPECIALLY was poorly developed in the film, mostly because they had to take out a lot of her flashbacks/stories/etc to make room for the others. But, like in the graphic novel, I found myself loving every minute whenever Rorschach the focus.
Mostly, you'll get the most enjoyment if you've read the work beforehand, since there are a lot of amusing easter eggs and things in the film. What doesn't work in the original novel doesn't work in the film as well, but I would really like to see the Director's cut of the film- I think that if the excised footage helped develop other characters, "Watchmen" the movie could be a little masterpiece.
Not surprised, overhyped and too long.
I saw the movie and I loved it! I agree with Roger Ebert's review, not this one here.
Worst sex scene ever filmed? Are you kidding me? It was a very good sex scene. Nowhere near in my top 10 of all time, but definitely in the top 10 sex scenes in graphic novel/superhero adaptations–heck, top 3, even. Somehow Patrick Wilson always ends up in the good sex scenes with the good partners (see "Angels in America" with Mary-Louise Parker and "Little Children" with Kate Winslet)!
The first 20-30 minutes did seem a bit rocky to me, but as it got deeper into the story, I became more and more hooked. It was 163 minutes, but I never checked the time, nor did I even think of doing so.
I am definitely watching this movie in theaters again.
I saw it yesterday, and I loved it. Going to go see it again.
well, I saw it. Thought it was pretty odd. Not "great" but ok.
Cons: Its too long, confusing, and pointless.
Pros: Funny and interesting.
@Vince: You rock.
I had hoped this movie would be good but instead walked out on it. It drudges along trying overly hard to to illustrate an extremely simple plot. The most fun I had up until the time I walked out was checking my watch to see if ten more minutes would somehow be enough time for this movie to hold my interest. It wasn't. Do not waste your money on this crap.
Sorry I just wanted to reclarify what I was saying….
Not every single review comes down to taste really —- some do, but what I mean about my post was that some critics are actually saying that this movie is BAD quality, and it is certainly not BAD quality. There are certain movies like Watchmen, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, 300, the Dark Knight, etc. that have had a lot of effort put into their making so that it is not really FAIR (I would say) to call them 'bad' movies (techinically speaking), but I think its ok to call them 'bad movies' in YOUR own opinion (because they are not bad technically, just bad to your own taste) – which some critics did in fact make these epic movies bad reviews. So I wasn't trying to contradict myself, but say that what I didn't agree with is some top critics callling Watchmen a 'mess' or 'horribly made' or 'not a good watch' (completely discrediting the filmmakers!) when it is in fact a fine watch AND very well made, but just not appealing to some (sorry I didn't make this point too clear previously).
Although I will say that the comments here are all really good, actually informative and sensible reviews, better than I've seen from a lot of the top critics who completely shut down Zack Snyder and his team – which I think is a little unfair! I will say though that the tendency has been that mostly those of us who have actually read the graphic novel really enjoyed the movie, while those who just watched the movie tend more to not understand the movie and therefore don't really like it (just generally speaking though)
@Vince: I completely agree with your comment though on making the actual Graphic novel a movie —- Alan Moore creates the most complex and imaginative stories that are not easy and virtually impossible to bring to the screen as easily as something like the Dark Knight or Spiderman. Which is why he probably doesn't support the making of his novels into movies so much
@Laura: Vince rocks, but wow. That was awesome.
I enjoyed this movie to a certain point. After that awful sex scene the movie just went downhill. The mars scene bored me half to death and the movie didn't win me back after that. I actually have friends who read the book a week or day before seeing the movie. They actually had the nerve to say the squid ending was bad and the NEW ending was better! Anyone who thinks this is a cynical moron. And brad you forgot to mention that Malin Akcermann was awful in this movie, as were numerous others. But Jeffery Morgan Dean was surprisingly great, I really liked him in the role of the comedian. I also liked Dr Manhattan and Rorschach a bunch.
i disagree with the review of course. what's disappointing to read & observe is you guys always compare the movie to the original work. which i respect or course & i understand why we have to compare these adaptations whether from the novel, comic, tv series, broadway etc. but a film is a film & a movie is a movie. we have to appreciate the movie/film on its own right.
ok, i was also a bit bored by the story, i would rate it B minus than a C minus. i have to confess though that i have only read the first issue of the graphic novel then i lost my liking to read comics at that time & never really followed the issues afterwards. but now that i have seen the film, i will want to catch up on the movie to also understand what you guy are saying.
but the result is the same. this movie is a movie. we need to look at the movie on its own right again. will i have a different opinion when i now read the comics? of course i will, because the story is definitely different from the movie compared to the page. but would we want watchmen to be the exact replica of the comics? if you do, then we will spend more than 7 hours watching it. much like how lav diaz direct all of his award winning obra's
changes are made from the original content to movie because it has a reason. but if i explain it here, then this will be a very long read. i suggest you rent or watch the special features DVD of LOTR trilogy : extended editions, there peter jackson makes a good comment AND observations on why some so many films are changed dramatically for the movie. he even thought he could be very faithful to the LOTR books, but he found something odd if he does follow it to the tee. so he changed some.
@dragonrower: Not sure if you are directing this at my review or the comments, but my entire review looked at the movie on its own, but it is worth pointing out Snyder's faith to sticking as close to the book hurt the film… a lot actually.
You say "changes are made" but that is the problem, no changes were made. Snyder shot the panels and then excised material which destroyed the layering of the original story and simplified it down to a straight-forward narrative, which ultimately isn't interesting, exciting or entertaining. At least not to me. Obviously you and others disagree, but I was not comparing the film to the book.
no worries brad, just making a point. & the comment was directed to everyone who is curious about the article. ;)
My comment was just for the movie alone since I never read the novel.
my immediate reaction to Watchmen is to feel haunted by the intense style and storyline — haunted in a good way that is… overall i loved it
I can agree with some of the points you made, but whenever a movie with a sex scene comes out it is always said to have the worst sex scene in a movie ever.
Brad to Hey: This is never the case and one hell of a weird comment.