Editor's note: Several plot points in the film are discussed in this review of "Watchmen"
By Ryan Riley, Contributor
I've been a comic book fan since I was a small child, but it wasn't until my teenage years that I discovered their full storytelling potential. The books that opened my eyes were The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller and Watchmen by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. Back then I was mainly into the X-Men titles from Marvel and the Batman books from DC. I didn't really care to try out new books. It was my friends Mike and Aaron that convinced me to give both books a try, and the stories blew my mind. So besides my appreciation for the obvious brilliance of Watchmen, the book also reminds me of the friends that initially exposed me to it. When I heard about the "Watchmen" movie last year, the fond memories associated with the book heightened my anticipation of its release. Now that the movie is released, it's time to see if it lives up to its source material.
What the movie got right
The overall plot of the book remains intact in the movie, you'll be happy to know. In fact, the more memorable scenes in the comic book were translated (mostly) faithfully in the film. In particular, the flashback scenes of each character remembering their encounters with the Comedian over the years (including Dr. Manhattan's at the close of the Vietnam War and Nite Owl II's during riots in 1977) play mostly beat-for-beat like they did in the pages of the comic.
Don't panic, but there were some changes made to the movie. Some of them detract from the movie, but some of them actually worked out well. Instead of beginning the movie with the police investigating the Comedian's apartment after his murder, it shows the entire altercation leading up to his defenestration. Other scenes fleshed out the history and political climate of the world that the Watchmen inhabit. After the Comedian is thrown out his window the opening credits begin, featuring the history of costumed heroes from the beginning of World War II to present day and their impact on the world. Some of the backstory that the movie just didn't have time for, such as the history of the Minutemen, were touched upon there, and other than the blazing of the guns in the still-shot montage it was very well done. And there was a nice topical touch thrown into the Ozymandias assassination scene with his dressing down of oil and auto industry bigwigs threatening to strongarm him into giving up his pursuit of alternative energy.
The casting of the major characters in the movie was simply spot-on. Malin Ackerman (Silk Spectre II), Patrick Wilson (Nite Owl II), Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Comedian) and Matthew Goode (Ozymandias) did well in their respective roles. But it was Jackie Earle Haley and Billy Crudup that stood out the most as Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan respectively. Haley disappears into the role of Rorschach, keeping much of his psychopathic edge while still keeping him human. And Crudup effectively portrays Dr. Manhattan as a godlike being that can control everything in his world but is unable to comprehend the human condition.
Where it went wrong
The main drawback to trying to put Watchmen on film is that it is so large in scope that it is inevitable that some scenes and plot points just weren't going to make the cut. For example, the subplot featuring the death of Hollis Mason (Nite Owl I) at the hands of a gang of Knot-Tops in retribution for Nite Owl II breaking Rorschach out of prison. What I enjoyed even less were scenes that were deemed worthy of filming but ended up condensed, such as Rorschach's psychological sessions in prison and the conversation between Dr. Manhattan & Silk Spectre II on Mars. Also, the reduced scene time of bit-players such as the newsvendor and the crew at the New Frontiersman, while streamlining the film, also took away a valuable tool that offered insight as to how the common man feels about the goings on in this world.
Another thing that bothered me about the film was that it made a violent story even more violent, which I didn't think was possible. But in the scene where Silk Spectre II & Nite Owl II take out a group of Knot-Tops in an alleyway, the scene went out of its way to show you every broken bone that they dole out in as graphic a fashion as possible. Slightly less gore would have worked out better, as it took over what looked to be a masterfully choreographed fight scene. And they got a little slo-mo happy during the fight scenes. That works for "The Matrix", but "Watchmen" should have taken a cue from the fights from "The Dark Knight". The fights would have been more effective at normal speed.
Something that bothered me about the opening credit montage was that it showed the Comedian firing the fatal shot that killed JFK in 1963, which deviated slightly from the book where he was just watching over Richard Nixon.
The bottom line
While there were admittedly some things that this movie did not do all that well (including the slight tweak on the ending), I have to give major props to director Zack Snyder. He had the courage to at least attempt to make a faithful adaptation of Watchmen. Hearing him speak so reverentially about the book in interviews makes me think that any cuts and changes he made were done so with the greatest of reluctance. We could have ended up with another "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" had anyone but a fan of Watchmen been tapped to direct. That wouldn't have been pretty. Also, I'm sure that having Dave Gibbons involved as a consultant helped tremendously.
In short, "Watchmen" isn't as faithful to its source material as "Sin City" was, but it's as close as any filmmaker working under the auspices of Warner Bros. can get. When you take that and the fact that other films based on Alan Moore's work ("League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" anyone?) bore little resemblance to their source material, what Snyder accomplished was nothing short of miraculous. And it's definitely worth catching in IMAX to enjoy the visual effects all the more.
