Magnifisyncopathological

A year ago, I decide to abandon the movie rumor mill. I would dig into pre-release information on a film I thought I'd like and I'd almost always have unreasonably elevated expectations. Watchmen was one of the announcements that convinced me to back off and just wait for opening day to experience it myself. In the meantime, I bought the graphic novel.

And it was fantastic.

So yesterday a friend of mine and I went to the Alamo Drafthouse South Lamar to catch the 3:20pm show.

This review should be spoiler-free, though names and events are mentioned. If the reader has any interest in seeing the movie, they should do so regardless of what I write.

I have two primary complaints about the adaptation. First, the music was more often than not a distraction than an improvement. "Ride of the Valkyries" was probably the only scene-music choice that I liked. "All Along the Watchtower" is one of my favorite songs; it not only competed with its scene too much, but it didn't feel appropriate. When it began, I was hoping it would be the audio accompaniment for a montage of the world breaking down, but it was for something far more mundane. Dylan at the beginning was on the edge between too obvious and OK. Though my more pop-inclined friends recognized and liked some of the other period music, we agreed it was a bit of a waste to give those slots to well-recognized artists. My suggestion: the retro thing is fully established now, so why not find some current bands making original music?

My other complaint is two-fold: the lack of perspective from the common man and the lack of urgency, both found in ideal amounts in the graphic novel. I realize this movie is already "too long" (side note: too long, by a standard that is depressingly low) and a considerable amount of story and plot would not make it to the screen. I knew that going in and I realized it while reading the comic. Unfortunately, after watching the movie, I now know how important those elements were to the tone. Without the newspaper vendor, the cops, the various dinner parties, and other points of view apart from the main characters, it didn't have the original's degree of grounded realism. For good and for bad, those people's prejudices, fears, and opinions added weight to the moment and provided excellent thematic glue to connect plot points and concepts.

They also aided in the chronicling of the story's time frame. Moore and Gibbons did a great job keeping me on my toes. No other piece of literature I've read deserves the label "page-turner" as Watchmen. It breathed urgency and it did it in a medium where the audience controls its exposure to the story. I would have objected if Zach Snyder and his team incorporated the clock face at the beginning of each of the 12 chapters; not only were large chunks of those chapters missing, but it probably would have felt too 24-ish. But the movie lacked the inevitable crash towards doom the comic embodied. Yet this is a tricky point to make because I felt the film's pace was very good.

Character backstory was unfortunately hit and miss. The movie repeated a particular moment from Laurie Juspeczyk's childhood too often. Though the scene is packed with implications and hints, we saw it so many times it was easy to tune it out. Walter Kovacs received similar treatment, though he at least got three formative flashbacks to flesh out his character. As a whole, the history of masked crime fighters working as a group, falling apart, and eventually becoming outlawed was glossed over. I imagine many moviegoers walked out asking "who the hell was Adrian Veidt?", "why should I care about Hollis Mason?", and "so why did Dan and Laurie retire?" More casualties of the cutting-room floor. For the uninitiated, it was probably a chore to keep up.

Speaking of Dan and Laurie, their romance was one of the more uninteresting aspects of the comic and the adaptation didn't improve upon that shaky foundation. Their first sex scene was on-point, but the second "successful" one was just silly. It didn't have any of the tenderness present in the graphic novel's pages. Nudity can't save poorly-juxtaposed music and uninspired cinematography.

The movie might have overcooked the "joke" in a few places. Too many instances where they punned off the idea. References are meant to be used sparingly, folks.

I should also point out my mixed feelings regarding the changes made to the ending. No, I don't mind the change in the bad guy's bomb...in fact, the original version would have been difficult to shoot convincingly and without snickering. What bothers me is who the common enemy against the world was supposed to unite. Though the original idea was a bit outlandish, that very fact made it seem like a potentially viable reason for the end of the Cold War. The uniter Synder and team choose is just as viable an entity to use, and maybe it's just my attachment to the character, but dammit, he didn't deserve that fate.

Despite all that, I enjoyed the film. The casting was excellent. Jackie Earle Haley was nearly perfect as Rorschach. Tone, attitude, composure, all there. Gruffy voice was occasionally overdone, but not a big deal in my mind. One might complain he didn't have the featureless stone-faced poker mask as he was given in the comic, but that's primarily because nearly all of those scenes were during his psychological evaluations by Dr. Malcolm Long and that part of the comic was one of the film's more successful story compressions. No, Mr. Haley was awesome and deserves industry recognition. Too bad they didn't take a moment to explain his mask, something the comic described with relative ease and which would have offered more insight into his character.

Ditto for Billy Crudup as Dr. Jon Osterman / Dr. Manhattan. It had to have been a bitch to figure out how a character like Manhattan acts, let alone speaks. It isn't just being emotionless and it's more than mere detachment. Very solid performance coupled with some of the best CGI lip-synching I've ever seen. The tangles of his past, unfortunately, were among the lines cut.

I can't offer any improvements to Jeffrey Dean Morgan as the Comedian. Edward Blake was an ugly, vicious, hateful asshole in the comic and he was an ugly, vicious, hateful asshole in the movie. I felt the same disgust with him in both mediums. Ditto for Matthew Goode as Adrian Veidt. Though I don't think he had the physical dimension of the character down, the mental dimension was good. Given the lack of context surrounding Veidt's company (nothing I could see about the "Veidt Method") in the movie, not a real bad deal.

Malin Akermanas Laurie Juspeczyk was good, though she fell into the "glowering through my eyebrows to look serious" superhero clichè during the prison break scene. She's gorgeous and to me pulled off her shots convincingly. Carla Gugino didn't have the pizzazz the first Silk Spectre, unfortunately.

Really, except for Richard Nixon's ridiculous makeup and facial prosthetics, the cast was great.

They incorporated newspaper headlines into the movie about as well as the comic did. Some dialogue and scene framing were lifted directly from the pages onto the screen (and for good reason). The substitution of Reagan for Redford at the end was a neat bit of inspiration. They thankfully kept the newspaper man's and Black Freighter reader's hug. Unlike V for Vendetta (see What's Missing from the V for Vendetta Movie and Reviewing the V for Vendetta Movie, cont'd), Watchmen the movie didn't fail to address critical thematic elements and concepts from Watchmen the graphic novel.

So I give it an 8 out of 10. I look forward to a longer director's cut and the inevitable special features.

Look! A whole review without a single blue penis mention! Oh, wait...