I watched [the] Watchmen.
I actually went to the cinema to see Watchmen ON MY OWN yesterday. And you know what? Most of the other people in the were also solo. But I was the only one with popcorn. So I win.
I think that this can be summed up by saying that it was 40% "Ooh" and 60% "Hmm".
Let's start with the good.
The set design of the film was first rate. Aside from the scenes on Mars, which were two bogged down by glossy but clearly synthetic CGI and an AWFUL piece of miniature work when we first glimpse Adrian Veidt's Arctic base, the world of New York in the mid 80s were both detailed and fluid and a touching reminder of the source material.
The use of music was some of the best that I have ever seen in a movie. From the opening of Bob Dylan through Simon and Garfunkel and the sublime Philip Glass up to Leonard Cohen, all the music sounds as if it was loving cherry picked for each scene and sequence.
The opening sequence. Just fucking class. It takes no prisoners and is brutal in places but successfully sets the world up and lets us know why it's 1985 but not as we know it (Jim) and explains noodles of stuff found in the scenes in the book that were bound to be taken out. After all, the book is freakin' MASSIVE.
Rorschach. Absolutely convincing and pretty much how Alan Moore wrote him. I even liked his ever changing CGI mask.
But then there's the bad.
The characters. With the exception of Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach) and Jeffrey Dean Morgan (The Comedian), the acting was stilted and very very uninspiring. True, Dan Dreiberg (Nite Owl II) is a bit of a plank in the book, but he changes and develops reams of depth later on during the story. In the movie he remains a foppish awkward man, even in his last scene. Laurie doesn't have any of the depth that she deserved because the decision was made to leave out the conflict of her ethnicity out of the movie (which is an odd thing because it could have been done in just a couple of lines and would have made the character both more complex and appealing to the audience. And Billy Crudup's Dr Manhatten did the job, but nothing more.
The question of faith to the source material. I get the impression that the scriptwriters and director spent so much time in making sure that they were faithful to the comic book that they concentrated more on the style than the subtleties. I agree that things must be omitted as any adaptation must, but the things that are left in are confusing. Hollis Mason is seen having a beer session with Dan. Great, but that's all you see of him. The whole point of Mason being in the story is for his full arc - the conversation had with Sally and his ultimate demise at the hands of the Knot Heads. If I hadn't read the book then I would be confused as to who he even was. The other obvious problem with this much faith is that the characters (see above) don't have any breathing space and they are bogged down in making sure that marks are hit and facial expressions are as they are in the comic. It worked well for Sin City (where the style outweighs the stories) but was uncomfortable here.
Spoiler alert
The ending. It didn't make sense. Surely the Russians would assume that Dr Manhattan was still their stooge and it was an elaborate plan for bigger things. So okay, even if they did it still creates peace, but it doesn't have the same impact on the book's attack of an "alien" that makes humanity pull together and achieve peace. I can see why they did this (after all, the creation of the alien under Veidt's orders in the book is both long winded and complicated) but I still think that it was a somewhat easy way out and leaves the audience with more questions than answers.
But more importantly, there is the simple thing that, like all of Alan Moore's adaptations, they have a fucking hard source to adapt. Watchmen makes for an entertaining and very good movie that I will buy when it's released on Blu Ray or DVD and I will enjoy it again. But a good movie pales when compared to an EXCEPTIONAL book. I am hard pushed to think of a comic book better than Watchmen or, even, a work of literature that I prefer but can, just off the top of my head, think of masses and masses of movies that are better than Watchmen. Including both of the recent Batman movies, which, for me, turn the concept of the superhero on its head in a cinematic medium much better.
But as I've said, it's a good movie that really should be seen. Just read the book first. Even if only to work out what's going on throughout the movie.
I think that this can be summed up by saying that it was 40% "Ooh" and 60% "Hmm".
Let's start with the good.
The set design of the film was first rate. Aside from the scenes on Mars, which were two bogged down by glossy but clearly synthetic CGI and an AWFUL piece of miniature work when we first glimpse Adrian Veidt's Arctic base, the world of New York in the mid 80s were both detailed and fluid and a touching reminder of the source material.
The use of music was some of the best that I have ever seen in a movie. From the opening of Bob Dylan through Simon and Garfunkel and the sublime Philip Glass up to Leonard Cohen, all the music sounds as if it was loving cherry picked for each scene and sequence.
The opening sequence. Just fucking class. It takes no prisoners and is brutal in places but successfully sets the world up and lets us know why it's 1985 but not as we know it (Jim) and explains noodles of stuff found in the scenes in the book that were bound to be taken out. After all, the book is freakin' MASSIVE.
Rorschach. Absolutely convincing and pretty much how Alan Moore wrote him. I even liked his ever changing CGI mask.
But then there's the bad.
The characters. With the exception of Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach) and Jeffrey Dean Morgan (The Comedian), the acting was stilted and very very uninspiring. True, Dan Dreiberg (Nite Owl II) is a bit of a plank in the book, but he changes and develops reams of depth later on during the story. In the movie he remains a foppish awkward man, even in his last scene. Laurie doesn't have any of the depth that she deserved because the decision was made to leave out the conflict of her ethnicity out of the movie (which is an odd thing because it could have been done in just a couple of lines and would have made the character both more complex and appealing to the audience. And Billy Crudup's Dr Manhatten did the job, but nothing more.
The question of faith to the source material. I get the impression that the scriptwriters and director spent so much time in making sure that they were faithful to the comic book that they concentrated more on the style than the subtleties. I agree that things must be omitted as any adaptation must, but the things that are left in are confusing. Hollis Mason is seen having a beer session with Dan. Great, but that's all you see of him. The whole point of Mason being in the story is for his full arc - the conversation had with Sally and his ultimate demise at the hands of the Knot Heads. If I hadn't read the book then I would be confused as to who he even was. The other obvious problem with this much faith is that the characters (see above) don't have any breathing space and they are bogged down in making sure that marks are hit and facial expressions are as they are in the comic. It worked well for Sin City (where the style outweighs the stories) but was uncomfortable here.
Spoiler alert
The ending. It didn't make sense. Surely the Russians would assume that Dr Manhattan was still their stooge and it was an elaborate plan for bigger things. So okay, even if they did it still creates peace, but it doesn't have the same impact on the book's attack of an "alien" that makes humanity pull together and achieve peace. I can see why they did this (after all, the creation of the alien under Veidt's orders in the book is both long winded and complicated) but I still think that it was a somewhat easy way out and leaves the audience with more questions than answers.
But more importantly, there is the simple thing that, like all of Alan Moore's adaptations, they have a fucking hard source to adapt. Watchmen makes for an entertaining and very good movie that I will buy when it's released on Blu Ray or DVD and I will enjoy it again. But a good movie pales when compared to an EXCEPTIONAL book. I am hard pushed to think of a comic book better than Watchmen or, even, a work of literature that I prefer but can, just off the top of my head, think of masses and masses of movies that are better than Watchmen. Including both of the recent Batman movies, which, for me, turn the concept of the superhero on its head in a cinematic medium much better.
But as I've said, it's a good movie that really should be seen. Just read the book first. Even if only to work out what's going on throughout the movie.