Review of Watchmen (2001) by Sam R — 12 Sep 2015

Throughout the history of comic books/graphic novels, some works and authors have changed the industry, and what better example than Alan Moore, the man responsible of one of the best Batman interpretations ("The Killing Joke"), the Orwellian cult classic "V for Vendetta" and the greatest graphic novel ever written Watchmen (yes, graphic novel. The difference of a comic book and a graphic novel is that comic books are adventures of established characters that lack continuity or even when they have one, it is quickly rebooted; and a graphic novel is a standalone story with its own characters). How could Hollywood make a worthy adaptation of this beloved and iconic story? The answer is the polarizing Zack Snyder ´s version of Moore´s work. Is this film the abomination some claim it is? Or the masterpiece others consider it?

In 1985, USA´s government has banned vigilantism and it's on the edge of Nuclear War with the USSR. A former vigilante is murder, and one of his fellow comrades decides to investigate the reasons of this murder, but the answer may guide him to places no one wants to go.

If you have read some of my reviews of comic book/graphic novel movie adaptations, you know that I don't have a vast knowledge of them but I have read some of Moore´s work and I adore Watchmen, so I have to say that I'm of two minds about this adaptation. "Watchmen" is a film that has beautiful visuals that recreate the graphic novel panels faithfully, the cinematography is impressive for a summer blockbuster, Snyder´s visual directing is as pretentious as always but it is probably his greatest, most of the cast fit perfectly with their respective character (Jackie Earle Hayley is the perfect Rorschach and Jeffrey Dean Morgan is incredible as The Comedian), the CGI is so over the top that it match perfectly with Snyder´s visual style, and the dialog is directly taken form Moore's novel, wisely. With all the good stuff out of the way, let's address the bad stuff: Some of the cast don't match their characters and their performances don't help, some graphic scenes are laughable, the story is incredible on the novel but in this adaptation is muddled with the editing, while Snyder provides his greatest visuals their over the top vibe gets harder to swallow as the film progresses, and the pacing is just horrible. The idea of making a shot for shot adaptation is a double edge sword as it provides an insane level of faithfulness and appreciation for Moore´s dense writing but it also makes an overstuffed and overlong movie that offers a hollow experience. It is beautiful to look at and the writing is good (due to Moore´s source material) but it feels sterile and unsympathetic. The main objective of an adaptation is to select the best parts of the source material and translate them into the visual format; it doesn't matter if some changes are made as long as they are logical.

"Watchmen" is a beautifully shot hollow film; it truly shows that "Watchmen" is un-filmable. While it perfectly executes some elements, others are unnecessarily overstuffed and overlong. A shot for shot adaptation is a great idea on paper but not on screen. It is no abomination nor it is a masterpiece, it is a memorable failure. If you haven't read the source material, you may struggle with this film, or if you expect a cliché super hero film go look somewhere else.