SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Movie Review: 'Watchmen'

BOOKS AND ARTS MARCH 6, 2009

The Movie Review: 'Watchmen'

I first read Alan Moore’s seminal comic Watchmen when it was published in graphic-novel form in 1987, and it was a minor revelation. The audacity of Moore’s grim story of costumed heroes plagued by psychosis and alcoholism and lust, teetering on the brink between justice-seeking and sadism, was exceeded only by the style and imagination with which he (and illustrator Dave Gibbons) told it: the meticulous, nine-panel format that lent structure to the madness, the Philip K. Dickian comic-within-a-comic read by a peripheral character, the lengthy excerpts from (fictional) autobiographies and journal articles scattered throughout. It’s not without reason that Watchmen was long believed to be unfilmable.



Opinions will vary on whether self-announced “visionary” director Zack Snyder’s $100 million-plus adaptation is proof or refutation of this belief, though count me among those who judge it the former. Watchmen is in some ways an impressive movie, but it is a drearily over-literal one, the sober, well-financed retelling of a hallucinatory fever dream.



Snyder’s film opens sharply, tweaking the sequence of Moore’s original. It’s 1985, and Edward Blake (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), aging but still athlete-fit, watches television in his luxurious New York apartment. As a perfume ad set to Nat King Cole’s “Unforgettable” comes on, a mysterious figure bursts in and begins taking Blake apart, hurling him into walls and furniture and, finally, through his wide plate glass window. It’s a long way down to the street.



We soon learn that before his terminal fall Blake was a former crime-fighter named The Comedian, who’d more recently worked as a kind of paramilitary thug for the U.S. government. (With one notable exception, Moore’s “heroes” are not super-powered.) To get us up to speed, Snyder offers a historical montage on the evolution of costumed crusaders from the 1940s on, the early glories and tragic endings: a Mothman who went cuckoo, a lesbian avenger murdered with her lover, the eventual outlawing of the mask-and-tights set. It’s a nice sequence, although, in contrast to the sly appropriation of “Unforgettable,” it’s set ham-fistedly to “The Times They Are A’Changin.” (From here on out, the film rarely misses a chance to have a musical cue tell us something we already know: “The Sounds of Silence” accompanies a funeral procession, “Everybody Wants to Rule the World” plays as one character wrangles with the captains of global industry, “Flight of the Valkyries”--!--blares during a Vietnam battle scene.)



No one much bothers over the death of The Comedian, except for Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), a fellow vigilante and borderline sociopath who worries it may be the work of a “mask-killer” and sets himself the twin tasks of solving the crime and warning other former heroes of the threat: nice guy Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson), vinyl vixen Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman), corporate titan Ozymandias (Matthew Goode), and the omnipotent Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), a former physicist whom a nuclear accident rendered blue, bald, and (frequently) butt-naked.



These varied vigilantes bicker, bully, rehash the (mostly woeful) past, and, by fits, re-inspire one another to action. Snyder is loyal to his text to a fault, and such alterations as he dares--the tighter, more telegraphic opening, the replacement of a climax involving a giant, interdimensional psychic squid with something rather less goofy--are frequently improvements. But there are problems both with the tale, which was an awful lot more subversive 20 years ago than it is today, and the telling, which in contrast to Moore’s radical experimentation is disappointingly staid and straightforward, imprisoned by its own legend.




In the 1980s, Watchmen was the definition of envelope-pushing, a bleak, violent subversion of a relatively innocent genre. But over the subsequent two decades the pop-cultural envelope has been stretched outward more or less continuously, by Tarantino and “24,” by the dark inquiries of David Lynch and Neil LaBute and Todd Solondz, by the torture porn of Saws and Hostels, and on and on. The superhero genre in particular has been tweaked and twisted and turned inside-out in recent years: It’s not merely The Dark Knight that has stolen some of Watchmen’s thunder, but to lesser degrees Hancock and The Incredibles and even Ang Lee’s Hulk. At this point, we half-expect anyone in tights and cape to turn out to be a dangerous lunatic.



Shorn of much of its novelty, Moore’s story often comes across as silly--an imminent-nuclear-war-with-the-Soviets storyline that was fairly ridiculous at the time now seems positively risible--or, worse, an exercise in adolescent unpleasantness. Moore’s original was bloody to begin with, but Snyder amps the violence up still further, as if worried the material has lost the ability to shock. In the comic, Rorschach offers a handcuffed man in a burning building a saw and tells him to carve off a limb if he wants to escape. But given that Saw has over-exposed this particular cruelty (which Moore himself had stolen from the original Mad Max), Snyder instead treats us to the sight of a man’s skull being split with a cleaver, not once, but again and again and again. Even a throwaway scene in which Nite Owl and Silk Spectre fight off a mob of muggers is now augmented with snapped bones emerging from torn flesh. (Visionary, indeed.) Worst of all, these abuses are generally shot in caressing slo-mo with a lover’s ardor. In Moore’s comic the blood was plentiful but not beautiful; Snyder’s film--like James McTeigue’s adaptation of Moore’s V for Vendetta--strives grotesquely to make it both.



The absurdities and uglinesses of Moore’s original work are also more evident because Snyder’s film is incapable of the narrative gymnastics of the comic. Though he retains Moore’s fractured chronology and frequent flashbacks--to The Comedian’s attempted rape of Silk Spectre’s superheroic mother, to the accident in which (apologies to “Arrested Development”) Dr. Manhattan blue himself--he does not undertake the more literary ventures that gave the original such unexpected texture: the “Tale of the Black Freighter” mirror narrative, the “found” book excerpts, etc. As a result, Watchmen, which ought to highlight the strengths of its source material, too often reveals the weaknesses instead.



Snyder’s cast runs the full spectrum from awful to awesome. Malin Akerman--who in 27 Dresses and the Farrelly remake of The Heartbreak Kid was cast in the role of beautiful woman who’s nonetheless so irritating you desperately want her to go away--is no more tolerable in the (intended) sympathetic role of Silk Spectre. As Ozymandias, the “smartest man in the world,” Matthew Goode has the wan whiff of puberty to him. Crudup, the most accomplished actor of the bunch, is largely wasted as Manhattan, his wry demeanor buried under so much CGI that the most memorable aspect of his portrayal is probably the glowing blue manhood with which Snyder equips him. Patrick Wilson is solid as paunchy sweetheart Nite Owl, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan is rather good as The “with heroes like you, who needs villains?” Comedian.



But the film’s best performance by far is Jackie Earle Haley’s Rorschach. For the bulk of the movie, his face hidden by a mask on which ink-blot-like shapes form and re-form, he rasps with a cold fury that would have Christian Bale’s Dark Knight cowering in the Batcave lavatory. But it is when he is unmasked and incarcerated for a time that the character--and the film--come most fully to life. Though the diminutive Haley is about the size of one of Mickey Rourke’s steroidal biceps, he may offer the most compelling portrait of violent retribution since the latter’s turn in Sin City. One of Snyder’s shrewdest alterations was to take perhaps the best line in the comic, which appears in a psychiatrist’s report, and place it back in Rorschach’s mouth, a warning to his fellow prison inmates, many of whom he put there and all of whom want him dead: “None of you understand. I’m not locked up in here with you. You’re locked up in here with me.”



Such appeals to adolescent testosterone take one only so far, however, and not nearly the length of Watchmen’s 163-minute running time. Bit by bit, the convoluted plotting, sensualized ultraviolence, excruciating musical choices (did I mention an extended sex scene set to Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah”?), and line readings in which Malin Akerman wrestles with the concept of character like a bunny with an anaconda overwhelm everything in their path. By the time a giant ball of energy is dropping down on Times Square toward the film’s conclusion you may worry that New Year’s 2010 is already upon us. Grant Snyder this much, though: It took balls to have the last line in his opus spoken by a major character be “Nothing ends. Nothing ever ends.”



Christopher Orr is a senior editor of The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 18 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

18 comments

insert witty text here about being from the future

- Marty McFly

March 5, 2009 at 6:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malin Akerman? Huh?

- selish70

March 6, 2009 at 8:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah, ok. My apologies, it was me who was confused about the casting of Akerman, not the author. I will say that I'm pretty sure that Rorschach speaks that line in the comic as well, however...but it's been awhile...

- selish70

March 6, 2009 at 8:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Shorn of much of its novelty, Moore's story often comes across as silly..." NEWSFLASH: It was silly to begin with.

- Stu Witmer

March 6, 2009 at 10:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seriously, did this guy not see The Incredibles?

- gwolfjr

March 6, 2009 at 10:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The "Nothing ever ends" line is spoken by Dr. Manhattan to Adrian in the original.

- MoroccoMole

March 6, 2009 at 12:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ha ha, love the AD reference

-

March 6, 2009 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not that I am defending the movie (as I haven't seen it) but in fairness to Snyder, he shot another forty minutes of footage for "The Black Freighter" and "Under The Hood" and released them on DVD today and they'll be included in the movie on his director's cut DVD release. Apparently the studio heads didn't want another forty minutes put into a two hour forty minute movie for the theaters...

- Nick the Great

March 6, 2009 at 2:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

way to ruin the new ending for people who haven't seen it yet.

- bishop27

March 6, 2009 at 6:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

the last line of the movie was "a comedian died today" being read out of rorshacks diary

- aharris

March 6, 2009 at 8:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Silly to begin with? Sorry, Stu, but I think Moore passed the "silly" test long ago, and pulled comics along with him. On any all-time top ten list of comic stories, from any source, Moore will always have at least two works on that list, sometimes three. Any writer who'll tell you he doesn't want to be that kind of silly is lying to you.

- janus

March 7, 2009 at 3:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"At this point, we half-expect anyone in tights and cape to turn out to be a dangerous lunatic." As well we might.

- JohnEMack

March 7, 2009 at 1:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Though I don't disagree with your review, I have to say, you are way to soft. Those are 3 hours that I'll never get back again. The sex scene has got to be one of the worst ever put to film (including Shoot Em Up!), the action and violence, for all its gore has no sense of drama or excitement, and the dialogue was just embarrasing. I am not sure Wathcman is filmable.....but it would have been interesting to see what a competent director could have done. Alas, we will never know.

- lisap1999

March 8, 2009 at 9:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

God, it sounds horrible; as though someone strung together two hours of crummy youtube user-generated "music videos," where some nerd ruins both a song and a movie/tv show you used to like.

- Jimmy

March 8, 2009 at 10:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I just saw the movie, and waited until I had to read this review, and I have to say, Mr. Orr, that you are spot on. I am reminded of Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of Psycho. It truly was that pointless. Also, I re-read the graphic novel fairly recently in preparation to see the film, and none of the people who made comments before me are correct, except for the one who pointed out that "Nothing ever ends" was Dr. Manhattan's line (and in some ways, it would have been better if that had been kept rather than transposed). I'm not sure the ending of the film is an improvement over the comic's, however. It's different, but in some ways just as awkward. And the actor playing Nixon was positively suffocating under all that make-up, so much so that it was hard for me not to feel sympathetic towards him, which I don't think the director intended. I also was rather horrified to find myself feeling sympathetic to even an ersatz Nixon like the one in the film.

- James

March 8, 2009 at 4:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes it is not purely original. I hate to quote from the bible, but here I go. "There is nothing new under the sun" That being said, I applaud any effort to remove moral certitude from the minds of people in the benighted country. I hope someone sits all the neo-cons down and makes them watch this. The whole concept of good and evil is torn apart in this movie, and for that, it should be required viewing. Even though it is not the first time this has been done.

- Mike

March 8, 2009 at 7:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I went in with low expectations. I like the genre but had actually not read the "book"... and came out pleasantly surprised; better than I though. YMMV

- steve

March 27, 2009 at 2:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Looking back from let's say 30 years at the rise of the new fascism, we wonder why nobody even remotely cared. We even two major works of neo-fascistic movies by the same director "300" and "Watchmen", not only stylistic as you might argue about "300", but more importantly in content. We have a major fascism problem in the US. And it's definetely not gone with Bush. We have a new trend since "torture porn" and nobody detects it?

- rurban

April 13, 2009 at 2:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close