Who Watches the Watchmen? – a review in two perspectives

by: Ian Graham (The Watchmen Rookie)

It’s Friday night, and I find myself standing in line with some good friends and a lot of comic book lovers, waiting to get into one of this year’s early blockbuster movies. With standard issue stale movie popcorn and favorite bag of candy at my side, I feel ready for this, despite the fact that I know nothing about these characters, nor the story that everyone’s been raving about; I only have the most minimal feelings of reluctance, brought on by the fact that I’m mainly a Marvel, DC, and, (for a brief period in the 90’s) Image universes-guy.

unknown divx

However, everyone knows the formula for book-to-movie-success is to see the movie first, then read the book, thus allowing the book to exceed your expectations in terms of character/plot development, so I’m not too concerned. It worked for LOTR, I’m certain that it will work for Watchmen, and as the opening montage starts, set to Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin’ ” I find myself being drawn into what’s happening on-screen. The still comic-book-panel-like shots end, followed by the obligatory, intense opening scene meant to grab the viewer by foreshadowing some unknown future event, and I realize that I am beginning to enjoy this.

Abruptly and unfortunately, this is where most of the pleasantries end for me, and over the next two and a half hours, I find myself alternating between trying to put my finger on why I don’t understand this movie, and willing myself to fall asleep in the vain hopes that I will end up getting something positive out of the evening, namely, sleep.

It’s not until much later in the movie that I realize why I’m completely detached from what’s happening on-screen: this movie has nearly zero character development. I have no idea who these people are, why they wear these comical costumes, and what they are doing, or why.

• download before sunrise movie

For a comic book-based action movie, I was having to do way too much thinking.

Thankfully, Rorschach helps provides some insight to what’s going on through his narration of the story. For me, Rorschach is by far the most memorable member of the Watchmen in the movie, besides, of course, Dr. Manhattan and his rampant nudity (which at times seriously detracts from the plot – was it really necessary to have multiple versions of him in his full-frontal glory present on the screen during one scene?). Rorschach really gives this movie the grit needed to even be considered a good comic book adaptation: he has, by far, the coolest costume, great one-liners, and he’s just an all around bad-ass, exactly what you want from a comic book character.

As for Adrian Veidt, aka Ozymandias: Smartest man in the world, my ass! With no real character development, my bored mind is left wondering what was with the costume. Purple? Really? You would think that the world’s smartest man might have a clue. Veidt reminds me of those old SNL digital shorts with Ace and Garry: Ambiguous indeed.

Needless to say I was pleased when the near three hours of movie torture was over.

After seeing this film I began to question the accuracy of my books-to-movie formula: I really can’t take this story or its characters seriously, and I don’t know that I could get through the graphic novel. I tell myself that constantly snickering at the characters and dialogue isn’t generally a sign of a good thing, but have to admit that maybe there is more going on here that I just can’t understand by not having read the novel first.

For the viewer missing the appropriate background info, I suspect that you may fall into the same Watchmen trap as me: Comic book movies are supposed to be fun, but apart from the powerful CGI visuals and really cool fight scenes, this movie doesn’t have enough to keep the casual viewer interested.

This is more than a bad story; this is a failed attempt at movie making.

by: Gordon Graham (The Watchmen Veteran)

First, let me start by saying that I have both read the Watchmen

• free blow

comic and seen the movie, and in that light I always find it fascinating to see comics get re-made into movies. The differences in the mediums and how they tell stories are diverse and yet similar, like people on a packed subway car. Another interesting thing about it is the audacity and magnitude in making the presumption that one can make the movie version of a comic satisfactory to a broad audience, while still satisfying the need to stay true to the original piece of art that legions of fanboys and fangirls have come to know and love.

For example… well, I mean take your pick; they seem to be re-making comics with the same frequency a rabid hare on speed makes bunnies. I mean really, is an original idea as rare a thing in Hollywood as tanning beds are in the desert, or am I nuts? But I digress profusely…

For me, the beauty of a comic lies in the fact that you can read them as fast or as slow as you wish. As a fan, the degree to which you know the book is dependant on the degree to which you read and studied each frame and word; the same can be said for a film. However, the difference lies in the simple fact that when sitting in a theatre, as opposed to sitting down with a comic, if you miss something, that’s it, you missed it. End of story. You can’t just stroll to the projection booth and hit rewind.

• watch simpsons movie the in divx

While this isn’t necessarily always detrimental to a filmic experience, at the end of the day, it can negatively affect your overall impression of the film. And nine times out of ten if someone didn’t like the film on the first go, they aren’t going to give it a second chance.

My point is that the book the Watchmen

was so detailed and intricate that it would be nearly impossible for a filmmaker to show everything that the story requires for an audience to fully grasp its greatness. It would therefore be understandable if people walked out of the theatre saying they didn’t get it, and leap to the incorrect assumption that it sucked.

The other problem with the comic-to-film transition is that the fans’ zealous love of the comic transforms them into little critical Rorschachs themselves with no leeway and no compromise; It has to either be just like my experience with the comic or else DEATH! (You may accuse me of facetiousness at this point, but having met some of these kinds of fans I could argue otherwise). The intrinsic problem with that should be clear: if everyone has their own unique experience with the comic, not even Dr. Manhattan could make a film that satisfies each of them.

My point is this: go see Watchmen, but when you do, take it with a heaping bag of salt, whether you read the comic or not.

If you haven’t read the comic, please give the film at least a second chance if you didn’t like it the first go out. The comic was huge and no one could include all its goodness into a film without a subtlety that requires a repeat viewing.

If you’re a fan, for god’s sake, chill out. They can’t put everything cool from the comic into the movie, so love what they did put in, because they included a lot.

So, in future if asked if Watchmen is good, this is what I have to say: it depends on who is watching.