Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Updates:

Watchmen (2009)

Director: Zack Snyder

Time Out rating

Average user rating

77 reviews

Movie review

From Time Out London

The most celebrated graphic novel ever written, ‘Watchmen’ takes place in an alternate 1985 teetering on the brink of nuclear Armageddon, as a group of retired superheroes reunite to track down mysterious masked assassin. The graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons was a self-reflexive comment on the entire genre and explored the fine boundary between the masked vigilante, the dirty civil servant and the dictatorial fascist. It has long been thought unfilmable: a direct translation, it was argued, would be overlong, punishingly bleak, bewilderingly convoluted and wildly uncommercial.

Which is exactly the film '300' director Zack Snyder has delivered. With the exception of an altered (and, it must be said, slightly improved) denouement, Snyder and his screenwriters have changed almost nothing from the original text. Costumes, sets, visual effects, the framing of shots and sequences, all the choicest lines of dialogue, even the music selections come directly from the novel. With all of these decisions taken out of the director's hands, what's left for Snyder to do?

Snyder's biggest impact is felt in the action sequences, which are also the film's weakest scenes: overstylised, repetitive and pornographically violent. Violence is the major theme of Moore’s book: it’s questionable efficacy in solving global problems, the conflicted, animalistic thrill of crushing one’s enemies. Snyder rides roughshod over such subtleties: 'Watchmen' may be the nastiest blockbuster ever devised. It luxuriates in snapping bones and literal explosions of gore. It's here that the gulf between comic and movie becomes most clear: Gibbons's drawings were often shocking, but they served a purpose. Snyder employs violence for the rush, and while this approach is sometimes brutally effective, it's also deeply crass.

The casting throws up mixed results: Patrick Wilson is agreeably vulnerable as Nite Owl, while Jackie Earl Haley makes for a supremely effective, unsettling Rorschach. But these two seasoned professionals stand out in a cast chosen for their physical similarity to Gibbons's drawings. Thankless female figurehead Silk Spectre demands an actress of real grace and vulnerability: Malin Akerman’s bland, soap-opera performance barely scratches the surface, while Matthew Goode's vacuous portrayal of the power-hungry Ozymandias suggests annoyed playboy rather than World's Smartest Man. But they can hardly be blamed: Snyder repeatedly fluffs the film's emotional peaks, blundering through on his way to another action setpiece.

But, try as he might, Snyder can't sabotage the sheer majesty of the source material. The breadth and grandeur of Moore’s globe-spanning narrative still astounds, and to see Gibbons’s iconic images writ vast and messy across the screen packs an undeniable sentimental punch. Like the book, there’s an impressive visual and narrative density here, cramming a bewildering amount of information into already overloaded scenes. The characters may be undermined by Snyder’s glib, hasty approach, but they still resonate, as do the overriding themes of power, corruption and human frailty.

But 'Watchmen' is still going to be the ultimate tough sell: there will be those who view the film as a bewildering mishmash of underexplored themes, thinly sketched characters and noisy, excessive violence. They're probably right: any work of popular art which demands prior knowledge must be deemed a failure. And yet, there’s something admirable about the entire enterprise: its ungainly size, its unrelenting weirdness, its willful, challenging intensity. Neophytes should probably steer clear, but for longterm fans of the source work this will be a hugely pleasurable, if ultimately unenlightening experience.

Author: Tom Huddleston 2009-02-26 12:03:53

Time Out London Issue 2011, 5 – 11 March, 2009

Bookmark

User reviews of this film

keith ifield said...

Posted on Mar 22 2009 15:32 I totally agree, this is one of the worst films i have ever seen . I feel like i wasted 3 hours of my life.

Report as inappropriate
Will said...

Posted on Mar 22 2009 13:47 I really didn't enjoy this film. The first posting by Santino is correct; this film has no direction. I even fell asleep at times, because it got so boring. I rate it a 6/10 film. Some of the film is excellent. There IS however too much, unnecessary sexual scenes that DO NOT add to the story. Remember T1 when Sarah Conner bedded the soldier from the future --- that had a point to it. In this film, there was no point in the sex scenes and they were very boring. Some of the fighting is ace; again though, it seemed pointless. There is not enough of Dr.Manhattan, a man with unlimited power and to all intent and purpose, a God. The film doesn't make clear that this is a parallel world, though you'd figure as much from some of the early suggestions, i.e. political wins etc., It starts off well, then there is a bit of fighting [pointless]; then there is an excellent piece about Vietnmam, then there is an hour of yap, yap, yappity boring yap, followed by some excellent scenes on Mars and a pointless, disappointing ending. I wouldn't recommend this film, unless you love science fantasy; if you prefer sci-fi. like me and consider Aliens, Predator, The Matrix, X-men, Pitch Black etc to be good films, then I think you will find this film a let down. It had such promise, but it really lost it's way. It's also a very dark film, with no hope and nothing but the evil nature of Human reality. I say avoid this film.

Report as inappropriate
Will said...

Posted on Mar 22 2009 13:31 I really didn't enjoy this film. The first posting by Santino is correct; this film has no direction. I even fell asleep at times, because it got so boring. I rate it a 5/10 film. Some of the film is excellent. There IS however too much, unnecessary sexual scenes that DO NOT add to the story. Remember T1 when Sarah Conner bedded the soldier from the future --- that had a point to it. In this film, there was no point in the sex scenes and they were very boring. Some of the fighting is ace; again though, it seemed pointless. There is not enough of Dr.Manhattan, a man with unlimited power and to all intent and purpose, a God. The film doesn't make clear that this is a parallel world, though you'd figure as much from some of the early suggestions, i.e. political wins etc., It starts off well, then there is a bit of fighting [pointless]; then there is an excellent piece about Vietnam, then there is an hour of yap, yap, yappity boring yap, followed by some excellent scenes on Mars and a pointless, disappointing ending. I wouldn't recommend this film, unless you love science fantasy; if you prefer sci-fi. like me and consider Aliens, Predator, The Matrix, X-men, Pitch Black etc to be good films, then I think you will find this film a let down. It had such promise, but it really lost it's way. It's also a very dark film, with no hope and nothing but the evil nature of Human reality. I say avoid this film. It made me depressed and wished I hadn't been born!

Report as inappropriate
Santino said...

Posted on Mar 21 2009 23:19 This film was weird.......the film took long to start was boring for 50mins or so then some action and the ending was poor.... overall not a great film and the director must be depressed or something coz the message this film sends out is that life is terrible, ppl shouldnt waste their money on this.

Report as inappropriate
Gordon said...

Posted on Mar 21 2009 08:46 Enjoyed it. One of the best comic based films I've seen. Highly reccommended.

Report as inappropriate
Jenni said...

Posted on Mar 21 2009 07:02 I find the comments about intellectual capacity quite humorous. Looking at the reviews they are either very positive or very negative....surely that points more to personal taste than IQ level? I would never dream of passing comment on someone's intellect based on what they thought of a movie. Movies are there to be enjoyed, or in some cases, not so much. Don't insult others if they did not enjoy a movie that you so clearly have. It's not an attractive trait in one's personality to attack views that you do not agree with.

Report as inappropriate
Marc said...

Posted on Mar 20 2009 23:52 Looking at some of these comments it seems quite obvious that they should have required people to have an IQ of at least 60 before letting them see this film.....idiots need not apply as this film does not contain a simple 1 dimensional plot and words containing only 1 syllable. So in summary awesome film if you have half a brain and don't need everything spoon fed to you...not so good if your a friggin retard with the intellectual capacity of your average root vegetable.

Report as inappropriate
Tim said...

Posted on Mar 20 2009 16:16 Poor ! What was the crystal sculpture on Mars .. like most of the film it had no point. Comic loving wannabe-intellectuals have probably found something to like.. but really ! such a disjointed film in quality and style .. with an unnessesary sex scene too! and lots of silly nudity - this film tried hard to tick a lot of boxes and just ticked people off instead. Interminable Waste.

Report as inappropriate
kimmy said...

Posted on Mar 20 2009 10:10 great film

Report as inappropriate
paul elliott said...

Posted on Mar 19 2009 17:27 there were flaws with the film, but it was perhaps too faithful to the source material in terms of pacing and execution. the stylised violence was needlessly, but effectively, brutal and some of the acting was poor. On the plus side, it was thoughtful, didn't stint on backstory, had a better ending than the book, and by sticking to source material so closely contained some effortlessly brilliant lines from rorshache (who totally wons both book and film). all in all, glad it was made, enjoyed most of it, look forward to catching it on dvd and certainly better than the recent batman film :)

Report as inappropriate
Pete said...

Posted on Mar 19 2009 16:03 An excellent film, thoroughly enjoyable - and didn't get dumbed down for the kids. Too many films now get stripped of their realism to appeal to the younger (or less intelligent) viewers - not this one. Probably why there are a few idiots that don't like it.

Report as inappropriate
Time Waster said...

Posted on Mar 19 2009 14:07 As a grown man all i can think of saying something really productive is 'Penis!!!'

Report as inappropriate
Cappybear said...

Posted on Mar 18 2009 18:48 My wife and I enjoyed the book and thought that, as film adaptations go, this was better than most. Like Tom Huddleston, we thought that the characterisation of Ozymandias was a bit weak, but all in all, good stuff. Go read the book, if you haven't already.

Report as inappropriate
Mickf said...

Posted on Mar 18 2009 17:55 I haven't read the original graphic novel, so I've got nothing to base anything on, but I really enjoyed the film. I thought the acting was fine and the action was exciting. It was a bit long, but it kept my attention to the end. I'd recommend this to anyone who wants see something a bit different.

Report as inappropriate
Lambert Simnel said...

Posted on Mar 16 2009 13:04 Good, but not great. I disagree that changing the end was an improvement (perhaps that makes me a fanboy) - this story change then requires that John is working for the benefit of humanity even though he has obviously become significantly detached from humanity and life in general for quite some time. Oh well. I think it was done as well as it could have been.

Report as inappropriate