Musings while watching Watchmen...
Is it possible for something to be really, really good, and yet simultaneously disappoint you?
Apparently it is, because that's how I'm feeling after seeing Watchmen.
Let me say this up front: this was about as good a translation from the book to the screen that you could ask for. Had this burst forth from the forehead of Zach Snyder without any source material we would be hailing him as a cinematic God.
But there is source material, and I'm afraid that anyone who has read the graphic novel will come out feeling a sense of disappointment. The questions will be: just how much disappointment are they feeling; and can they set that aside and view this piece objectively as a FILM?
Understand, one of the biggest things that makes Watchmen: The Novel so compelling, so outstanding, is the sheer depth, the layers upon layers that are present in every panel of every page. The book is dense with characters, with background hints that you only pick up on with repeated readings. The best way I can put it is that the novel is like a well-marbled porterhouse steak, while the movie is a filet mignon sans the bacon wrapping. A filet mignon is a magnificent cut of beef, to be sure, but it's very dry, and needs the extra fat to keep it moist and flavorful. A filet mignon on its own is a bit bland.
In order to convert this into a film, a lot of the book's fat had to be trimmed. And while it makes for a great movie experience, it just lacks the flavor of the book. Zach Snyder proved that the unfilmable book could be filmed. I guess the upcoming debate will be, SHOULD it have been filmed?
Still, let me emphasize the point. This was a very good movie, and it was as faithful to the source material as a film could be. But I will tell you before you go see it: if you've read the book, you'll need to make sure you can set it aside as much as possible while watching the film. Otherwise you will notice the difference and it will nettle at you.
Apparently it is, because that's how I'm feeling after seeing Watchmen.
Let me say this up front: this was about as good a translation from the book to the screen that you could ask for. Had this burst forth from the forehead of Zach Snyder without any source material we would be hailing him as a cinematic God.
But there is source material, and I'm afraid that anyone who has read the graphic novel will come out feeling a sense of disappointment. The questions will be: just how much disappointment are they feeling; and can they set that aside and view this piece objectively as a FILM?
Understand, one of the biggest things that makes Watchmen: The Novel so compelling, so outstanding, is the sheer depth, the layers upon layers that are present in every panel of every page. The book is dense with characters, with background hints that you only pick up on with repeated readings. The best way I can put it is that the novel is like a well-marbled porterhouse steak, while the movie is a filet mignon sans the bacon wrapping. A filet mignon is a magnificent cut of beef, to be sure, but it's very dry, and needs the extra fat to keep it moist and flavorful. A filet mignon on its own is a bit bland.
In order to convert this into a film, a lot of the book's fat had to be trimmed. And while it makes for a great movie experience, it just lacks the flavor of the book. Zach Snyder proved that the unfilmable book could be filmed. I guess the upcoming debate will be, SHOULD it have been filmed?
Still, let me emphasize the point. This was a very good movie, and it was as faithful to the source material as a film could be. But I will tell you before you go see it: if you've read the book, you'll need to make sure you can set it aside as much as possible while watching the film. Otherwise you will notice the difference and it will nettle at you.