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

dragster said...

Posted on Mar 09 2009 17:59 Having had nothing to do with this title in it's original form, and having seen it run down by broadsheets and the local paper but having been intrigued by the several trailers I saw (monthly ticket) I was happy to give it a go. The screen I went to was only a 600 seater and it was packed, nobody walked out.
As should be expected people who can be bothered to comment tend to be at the extremes. For those people who have been offended by the (for present day) glimsed real nudity and computer-generated male full frontal then I think it is a real pity for yourselves and the rest of the audience that you went, same for the cg violence.
First and foremost I like a story/plot, the watchmen has one; deception - revenge - sacrifice with some amusing moments thrown in with the plot twists. Unless I have got it completely wrong this is a world where (the blue Dr. M being a potential exception) the average "super" hero may be tough but ageing, capable of backing the wrong side as well as having personal flaws and being decidedly mortal. If the original book contained further side plots or nuance in what was shown then that is great for those who read it, there was sufficient here to keep me entertained from start to finish.
I have seen a few "comic book" and SF films in recent months, some I thought good to middling. Batman and Iron Man (granted better acting but lesser storylines), some I wish I had not wasted my time on such as The Spirit and Cloverfield.
I may well give The Watchmen a second viewing in a couple of weeks when I should be able to get some elbow room and hope to enjoy it in more comfort, this is the best of the recent buch, I recommend it.

Report as inappropriate
B-Man said...

Posted on Mar 09 2009 17:21 Awesome movie. Julia is Miss Jupiter! If you don't like graphic novels, corrupted superheroes, blood and gore why see this movie?! Ha ha ha ha ha I loved it

Report as inappropriate
frank said...

Posted on Mar 09 2009 15:25 speeling books? luks lik u ned sum ov yr one therr buddddy.

Report as inappropriate
SmackedUpToddler said...

Posted on Mar 09 2009 15:13 This film is top totch, I don't know why Usman is talkin smack about it. Word of advise usman, take that jar out ur ass, and use it to keep ur speeling books in, u do need it man. u must of gone to bovine university with them words.
Anyway, I thought blue man was great, he is fantastic!
Usman, u are not anywhere as cool as blue man.

Report as inappropriate
Matthew McKinnon said...

Posted on Mar 09 2009 13:23 Tom Huddleston nailed it with this review. I had exactly the same experience watching WATCHMEN.
Roy nailed it with it very first comment, and I'm surprised no-one else has said this [including me!] - this really is a Dune for the 2000s. Not that Snyder's anything even distantly approaching a Lynch, but nice one, Roy.

Report as inappropriate
anon said...

Posted on Mar 09 2009 12:20 THIS FILM R WELL GUD KTHX

Report as inappropriate
Lupus said...

Posted on Mar 09 2009 11:14 Forbes............The film doesn't really work as a piece of mindless entertainment. That's why people left the cinema. Many of the characters long overworked speeches were annoying to some. Including myself.
If you just annoyed the exploding bodies........I can recommend a good therapist.

Report as inappropriate
Joe said...

Posted on Mar 09 2009 11:09 Julia, couldn't disagree with you more! To say the violence in this film isn't gratuitous or that it actually provides meaning makes no sense. The extreme violence, albeit computer generated, was clearly the main focus of the film. That's what was meant to entertain. I didn't see any attempt at creating a coherent or believable story and the characters just came across as complete morons. I accept the format and story might work in a graphic novel but I think the film is awful! Zack Snyder & co have taken the easy and very lazy option of soley pursuing and copying the violence and imagery of the books. The images in the books may well contain all sorts of meaning and evoke all sorts of emotion. It would I'm sure be considered art. But the film is pure exploitation, junk and instantly forgettable.
I didn't get it but there was nothing to get!

Report as inappropriate
forbes said...

Posted on Mar 09 2009 11:05 I find this page highly amusing.Does the majority of it go to a film to analyse and deconstuct it into little parts and then moan about the directors vision and approach to the violence in it?
The director made 300 and sin city - does that not tell u something! if its too violent go and see bolt, im sure you'll have a better time and you wont feel bad about spending your £6 for a ticket! lol
I thought this was an amazing film and i just sat and watched as a film not some wannabe johnathon ross'. O by the way my grammer and spelling are probably wrong too but who give a shit! oops 1 profanity better R rate it lol

Report as inappropriate
Lupus said...

Posted on Mar 09 2009 10:05 Julia..........As I said previously........The "Humans will ultimatley destroy themselves" genre has been done to death. And in much better ways than this. Stripped down, this appeared to be an arthouse wolf dressed unconvincingly in blockbuster sheep's clothing. I appreciate it may faithfully represent the graphic novel, but I think you have to appreciate the graphic novel was written in the 80's. The over stylised deep meaning dialogue just seems pretentious and indulgent when transferred to the big screen. I think that was reflected by bums leaving seats, when I went to see it.
The purpose of a movie needs to be clear to the viewing audience. I don't think it is with this one. It appeals to readers of the graphic novel. But surely it should get it's point across even if you haven't read the novel(s). And have some entertainment value to boot. I think this movie fails to do that. It's somewhat preachy and annoying.
The only thing I really enjoyed.......was Rorshach. His character was developed and held my interest, more than any other.
As I said. It was ok, but nothing special. I think it will make money in the first week or two. But mainly becuase people will believe the hype. Once enough people have seen it, word will spread and audiences will dwindle to nothing.

Report as inappropriate
Howard Wilkes said...

Posted on Mar 09 2009 04:16 Who critizizes the critics

Report as inappropriate
usman khawaja said...

Posted on Mar 09 2009 02:36 kenny karten
OR KINDERGARTEN
I WRITE TO GET RID OF MY FRUSTRATIONS ABOUT A movie and to inform myself and others
not to appease kindergarten kids like you -keep your grammar books and cook a soup out of them with some rat meat and swallow it to your hearts content
lolz
the worst movie ever made with the most hilarious sex scene in history with hellelujah ,
i think women dig that -try it guys ,
it turns them on
at least some perverted and depraved minds surely ,my wife has been hysterical since i took her to see this and
kindergarten or kenny karten whoever -i think you should go see american teen and surveillance as a punishment for your perfect grammar that you inherited from -oscar wilde -
this is so bad it makes spirit look good and thats a feat much ahead of kindergartens brilliant grammar

Report as inappropriate
Julia said...

Posted on Mar 09 2009 01:43 Joe, I respect the fact you may not like seeing movies with blood and rape and murder, not many people do. But you obviously didn't get the point of it. It's not gratuite violence, like Fast and Furious or Rambo. It has a real meaning. I'm sorry if you didn't get it.
The graphic novel and therefore the movie shows how seriously troubled human beings are with their politics and wars. How do people with power do terrible things and no one ever knows about it and how obnoxious the society really is.
It's about opening people's eye. That's why its brilliant.

Report as inappropriate
Joe said...

Posted on Mar 09 2009 01:30 Utter trash! I'm amazed people are leaving positive comments for this film, especially women! Wake up people, this film is nothing short of being a snuff movie! Just the most expensive one ever made! That's all it is! Well done Warner Bros and Zack Snyder, a great amount of thought and skill was obviously needed to produce scenes of rape, murder and endless mutilation!
I don't wish to offend readers of graphic novels, but if you liked this film because it is similar to the Watchmen graphic novels, then, you really ought to spend more time reading proper books, ie. one's without the blood-soaked pictures!
This film is hopelessly dull and depraved. A product of equally dull and depraved minds. I reckon it will be remembered as the worst film of this year and will undoubtedly be the biggest box office flop of the year too! A total disgrace.

Report as inappropriate
Alison said...

Posted on Mar 08 2009 21:10 DON'T DO IT! I can't believe what nice things these people have to say about this film. IT WAS THE WORST FILM I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE! Don't waste your time even thinking about watching this film. A waste of time and money, DON'T DO IT!

Report as inappropriate