Alan Moore's celebrated graphic novel, Watchmen, has often been referred to as "unfilmable", and for years it had seemed as if that might be true. There had been several unsuccessful attempts to get an adaptation started over the years, but now Zack Snyder has brought it to the big screen. Is it completely faithful to the comic? Not completely faithful, but about as faithful as can be expected.
I really enjoyed the film. The flashbacks to the early years of the Minutemen, Osterman's accident and Vietnam were handled very well. Snyder wove info from "Under the Hood" and other sections of the comic into the movie deftly and was able to provide the backstory and bring to life the alternate 1985 that Moore and Gibbons first created. The casting was excellent and the acting is quite good, but the real stand-out, in my opinion, was Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian. (With the minor exception of the fact that he is supposedly 22 in the 1940 flashbacks and who are they kidding, he fit the part perfectly.)
It's not all perfect, however. There were some things that did bother me. While the look of all of the times and settings was excellent, President Nixon just looked absurd. The obvious prosthetic nose and massive amounts of makeup were distracting every time he was on screen. I don't mind changes from the source material, but changing the name of the second group of costumed heroes from Crimebusters to Watchmen. The change made it seem as if they didn't believe that the audience could comprehend that the title of the film came not from the name of a group of crime fighters, but from the question that it asks. The thing that bothered me the most was Snyder's (over)use of slow motion. Just as he did in 300, Snyder uses slow motion and freeze frames in every action sequence. the technique can be used both to emphasize the action and to replicate the panes of the comic source material, but when it is used so often it becomes distracting. I'd had enough of it before the end of the first scene of the movie and by the end I felt like it was the only move he knew for action scenes and that asking him to do anything else would be like asking Zoolander to turn left.
If you could only choose one and asked me whether it would be better to go see the movie or read the comic, I would tell you without hesitation to pick up a copy of the graphic novel and start reading now. Fortunately, the world doesn't work that way, and we get to have the comic in its original form and the movie counterpart we were told we could never see.
2 comments:
I forgot about Crimebusters. Good point, there. I'm sure he changed that to make an obvious link to the title.
Denny was rather awesome, I agree.
Nixon's nose irritated me every time I saw it. What were they thinking?
As for the slo-mo scenes, that didn't distract me too much. I remember thinking when he started to overuse it that he was just trying to make the action sequences look cool. It's not really an action comic, but I guess he needed to add some spice into the movie for the masses. But I see your point. It's clever once or twice. It's less and less impressive if that's the only trick found in your entire oeuvre.
So far, I'm enjoying the book (easier than typing out graphic novel) more than the movie. I liked the movie...I did....I just didn't like it as much as I thought I would. And I can't put my finger on the exact reason why either. But the book is getting a more emotional response from me than the movie did. I feel more connected to the characters as I read the book. The only character that I really "cared" about in the movie was Rorschach. But I find myself liking Dr. Manhattan's character now as I read.
One difference* I've noted between the book and the movie? Dr. Manhattan's penis is smaller in the book. Which of course makes me want to make the "joke" about the camera adding 5 pounds but that's not really appropriate.
(*There's other differences, too. But they don't involve the word penis.)
Post a Comment