Review: "Watchmen"

After uncountable years of "production hell" and many, many months of hype (even from the "300" trailer), "Watchmen" finally appeared on the big screen to great expectations and high hopes. Based on the graphic novel of the same name by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, it has ranked as one of the most eagerly awaited film adaptations by the legion of comic book fans.

So did "Watchmen" succeed? It's difficult to answer that question. If you were looking for a superhero movie a la "X-Men", "Superman" or even "The Dark Knight", then you would have been very disappointed with "Watchmen". If you wanted a faithful frame-by-frame adaptation of the graphic novel, then you would be very satisfied. And if, like me, you were looking for something in between, then you would leave the cinema hall with a bittersweet taste in your mouth.

To understand this feeling, you need to understand the graphic novel. Alan Moore had written "Watchmen" as an exposition on the state of superheroics back in the 1980s. So-called "dark" superheroes were becoming very common, for example, a planet-juggling Superman had been throttled back into a person who was more comfortable being "normal". 'Watchmen" took this sentiment and ran with it, extrapolating it to what seemed like a logical -- if somewhat terrifying -- conclusion.

On top of that, the format of a graphic novel allowed Moore to express his ideas with words. The graphics provided by Gibbons were there simply to support Moore's vision. Take away the images and the story would still be profound, though its impact would be lessened. And that's the problem with the film adaptation. In recreating the comic book frame-by-frame, it also left intact a lot of exposition.

This was most noticeable in the film's conclusion. Like Commissioner Gordon's monologue at the end of "The Dark Knight", Ozymandias explanation of why he did what he did seemed to be very unnecessarily long. I felt that it should have been tightened, with more emphasis on visuals and action. As a film instructor once said, film is not watching a group of "talking heads".

As a result, the majority of the audience that had been unexposed to the graphic novel would feel extremely unsatisfied with the movie. This is in spite of the excellent actors and fight scenes and graphic effects. In all of those departments, "Watchmen" excelled greatly. Unfortunately, it lacked in the one area that was most important to any movie.

It's been said that the "Watchmen" comic could not be adapted to the big screen. I don't think so. Certainly, I feel that two-and-a-half hours is still not enough to present "Watchmen" satisfactorily. The problem is with the format. This movie is an example of how what works in one format, i.e. print, does not necessarily work well in another, i.e. film. Unfortunately, Zak Snyder, the director, could not have done anything else if he wanted to remain faithful to the material and the fans. There's just no easy way out of these two demands.

And so, we have a film like "Watchmen". It's faithful, reverent even to the graphic novel. And yet it still couldn't succeed the way it should've.

--