I really rather enjoyed the parallel stories of the missing artists, writers and other creative bods in the graphic novel, but it probably wouldn't've translated so well onto screen. Audiences - especially those unfamiliar with the original work - would probably wonder why the hell all the stylised, grusomely compelling action and character development was being interrupted by the idle conversation of a couple of people at a newstand and the somewhat surreal tale of an horrific shipwreck and ensuing Angst!
The screenwriters had a bloody tough job to do and I think watching the Watchmen made me realise how necessary it is sometimes to differentiate between what makes a work of art on paper and what makes a work of art on the screen.
I'm not saying the movie was perfect. I tried to watch it simultaneously as someone who knows the novel and as someone who hadn't even heard of it before sitting down in that cinema. If I didn't know what was going on, I reckon I would've been bored for half of it and downright confused for the remainder. Amazed by the glorious and grimly artistic violence, baffled by the chronology, for example.
The casting was excellent. Walter Kovacs was bloody excellent and Dan Dreiberg was fantastic. The Comedian? Wow Veidt was, eh, a bit of a letdown. The guy playing him looked too scrawny in in such an obviously over-muscled suit, verging on the pin-headed comical. From the novel, it seems obvious he's meant to be some great peon of perfection in form, thought and movement. The Veidt of the film screamed sociopath (not exactly warm and affiable) and while he was clearly The World's Smartest Man (we were reminded a few times), he was in dire need of more background. Jude Law might be an obvious choice, but when I heard he was in the running for the part, I felt reassured.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'd only read it for the first time quite recently, so I didn't have the same long-running fan-streak as many of our peers. I appreciated it very much as a strong and gorgeous and accurate adaptation (not faithful per se, but accurate in what it did)
I liked the look of Veidt because he reminded me a little of Bruce Lee in the 'looks scrawny but can throw you through a window' department. His body suit to me was an aspect of his ego screaming "Look at me, I'm beautiful."
I do wish they'd had him be a little less confident in his abilities and methods is all, like in the comic. I was hoping that he would ask Jon whether he'd done the right thing, like in the comic.
There are definitely some lines from Veidt that I'd like to have seen in there. To me the inclusion of the bullet catch seemed utterly pointless without that moment just after where he goes "I wasn't sure I'd be able to do that."
It makes you realise how much of a collossal gamble everything is for Veidt. He's doing this because its something big enough that even he can't be sure of winning. Like John he desperately needs something in this world that can actually challenge him.
On the whole though, I was very happy with his characterisation, given the brief time they had. I had no complaints about the actor. Jude Law might seem like a good choice, but the problem is the unbalancing effect that star power would have on the story. People would automatically focus on Veidt, instead of the twin lead narratives of Rorshach and Night Owl II. And yeah, both of those actors turned in award worthy performances.
I really rather enjoyed the parallel stories of the missing artists, writers and other creative bods in the graphic novel, but it probably wouldn't've translated so well onto screen. Audiences - especially those unfamiliar with the original work - would probably wonder why the hell all the stylised, grusomely compelling action and character development was being interrupted by the idle conversation of a couple of people at a newstand and the somewhat surreal tale of an horrific shipwreck and ensuing Angst!
The screenwriters had a bloody tough job to do and I think watching the Watchmen made me realise how necessary it is sometimes to differentiate between what makes a work of art on paper and what makes a work of art on the screen.
I'm not saying the movie was perfect. I tried to watch it simultaneously as someone who knows the novel and as someone who hadn't even heard of it before sitting down in that cinema. If I didn't know what was going on, I reckon I would've been bored for half of it and downright confused for the remainder. Amazed by the glorious and grimly artistic violence, baffled by the chronology, for example.
The casting was excellent. Walter Kovacs was bloody excellent and Dan Dreiberg was fantastic. The Comedian? Wow
Veidt was, eh, a bit of a letdown. The guy playing him looked too scrawny in in such an obviously over-muscled suit, verging on the pin-headed comical. From the novel, it seems obvious he's meant to be some great peon of perfection in form, thought and movement. The Veidt of the film screamed sociopath (not exactly warm and affiable) and while he was clearly The World's Smartest Man (we were reminded a few times), he was in dire need of more background.
Jude Law might be an obvious choice, but when I heard he was in the running for the part, I felt reassured.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'd only read it for the first time quite recently, so I didn't have the same long-running fan-streak as many of our peers. I appreciated it very much as a strong and gorgeous and accurate adaptation (not faithful per se, but accurate in what it did)
Reply
Go here* for extra-special mind fuckery.
*Don't go there. Ever.
Reply
Reply
*twitch*
Reply
I do wish they'd had him be a little less confident in his abilities and methods is all, like in the comic. I was hoping that he would ask Jon whether he'd done the right thing, like in the comic.
Reply
It makes you realise how much of a collossal gamble everything is for Veidt. He's doing this because its something big enough that even he can't be sure of winning. Like John he desperately needs something in this world that can actually challenge him.
On the whole though, I was very happy with his characterisation, given the brief time they had. I had no complaints about the actor. Jude Law might seem like a good choice, but the problem is the unbalancing effect that star power would have on the story. People would automatically focus on Veidt, instead of the twin lead narratives of Rorshach and Night Owl II. And yeah, both of those actors turned in award worthy performances.
Reply
Leave a comment