watchmen (2009)

when it comes to comic books and superheroes my knowledge and attention is fairly lacking. i have a historical love affair with captain america and a bunch of other marvel superheroes, and have a good grasp of the universe they exist in and the industry they are a part of. i am not an unreasonable man. i understand the technicalities that come with any adaptation, be it comic strip, tv show or prose novel, therefore i have never been one to bemoan the changing of aspects of a particular piece of source material to suit its newfound cinematic audience. with the unveiling of watchmen though, for the first time in my life, i found myself in the rather worrying predicament of acting a bit like a fanboy. i felt as though i had a god-given right to act as if the source material mattered enough to me so much that i had an opinion. ''this isnt like iron man, or batman" i thought, those films can exploit 50 plus years of history to their benefit, origins can be manipulated, scenarios can be changed, they do it in the comics so feel free to do it within the realms of film. with 'watchmen' though it was different, very different. the puzzle like nature of the book dictates that if a single ingredient is missing then a disaster could be afoot.

first of all changes to the ending were announced. many exclaimed blasphemy, whereas i wasnt hugely fussed. as long as they kept the message, the subtext if you will, then i will be happy. the second major negative mark against the films production was the employment of my chemical romance, pop-punk emo-supremo's to provide the films "theme-tune". not only that but it was a cover of one of my most beloved of songs, bob dylan's ''desolation row". "desolation row" provides what i feel to be one of the key inspiration points for the original ''watchmen'' book, in the shape of the line "now at midnight all the agents/and the superhuman crew/come out and round up everyone/that knows more than they do''. indeed the song is credited in the book, and the line is used to bookend one of the issues of the original comic that was collated to make up the now famous graphic novel. now my big problem doesnt lie in the fact that the song is one of my favourites, nor does it lie within the fact that my chemical romance are a terrible band (following record label ethics that surely contradict the message within 'watchmen'?), my problem lies in the very fact that zack snyder chose this band and this version of the song for his film. in his artistic opinion, this was the best he could come up with? really? the third and final negative pre-release woe came in the shape of the 30 second clips that were unleashed upon the internet just a few weeks ago. knowing full well that i would be seeing the film i didnt particularly want to check out the clips, for fear of spoiling the one aspect of the film that i didnt already know, but in the case of one scene i buckled. it was the scene involving nite owl 2 and the comedian on "crowd control" duty. in less than 30 seconds of footage i learnt 3 things. well i say i learnt 3 things, only 2 of those were new, whereas 1 was a confirmation of an earlier worry. the first piece of information was the confirmation that snyder really cant choose music. the scene in question, in which civil disruption turns into carnage at the hands of the comedian, features a riot, and is set in the 1970's. now whatever gave snyder the impression that 'im your boogie man' by k.c and the sunshine band was the soundtrack of choice for the keen rioter in the late 1970's i do not know, but it was a ridiculous decision, and indictive of his other musical choices, of which i will get to later. secondly, for all his good intentions, snyder just didnt get the look of this scene right. there was an ominous red glow involved in the original composition, and one which i always took to be a parallel with the scenes on mars. alas it wasnt replicated here. finally, thirdly, and perhaps most obviously was the apparent overuse of slow motion. in this one 30 second segment there were two uses of the damn technique. now im not exactly against the use of slow motion, but if ever there was a technique that required it be used in moderation then this is it.

so the run up to 'watchmen' wasnt particularly positive.

having seen the film this afternoon im actually confused as to how i felt about it. there were some great moments, and the film has a lot going for it, but i cant help but be ultimately disappointed by it.

as a literal translation of the comic strip-based action of the book then it worked fine. i was particularly impressed with jeffrey dean morgan as the comedian, and didnt find any of the performances especially lacking. the sidelining of 'moloch the mystic' and 'hollis mason', the first nite-owl was particularly annoying, being that they represent an area of the graphic novel that i found to be particularly of interest; the roots of the demistification of the superhero if you will. the pacing, obviously a victim through circumstance more than anything, really didnt work. the film didnt feel epic, as much has been made of it on various reviews, it felt slow, and lacking any kind of real heart. the all important subtext, without the contextual background provided within the book, didnt really exist. sure there was a mythology in place, plenty of opportunity for those who would like to seek out more to seek something out, but the subtext and message that were inherent throughout the source material is all but missing. a point that really got to me was the fact that the key point within the book that spells out the comedian and ozymandias' fate isnt in the film. there's a scene in the book whereby the comedian gives the young ozmandias. its a fleeting moment, but the nature of the assault mirrors the image of the opening section of the film perfectly; the roles are reversed and there was something rather poetic about the whole encounter. quite why the comedian fights back is again, beyond my comprehension. he has already accepted his fate by the time his killer strikes. for him to fight back (in the film) reaks of the filmmakers attempt at shoehorning action in. the fact that we lose the wonderful little bit of mirroring with the earlier (in the time frame of the narrative) event just adds salt to the wound.

the music, both score and found was awful, with particular woe being aimed at the use of leonard cohen's 'hallelujah' throughout the most embaressing sex scene i have seen in quite some time. seriously its just incredibly lazy filmmaking when you rely on such well known songs to project a feeling upon the audience. add in the use of 'the sound of silence' during the funeral march and you have something that i would expect from a student film.

one last negative - richard nixon? what on earth went wrong there?

as i mentioned above, the film translates the literal image of the book onto the screen in a very faithful manner. at times it genuinely does feel like the book has come to life, yet at others it feels like a shoddy rip off of the product it claims to be. the overuse of slow motion does wear at first, but after a while it blends into the edit and isnt especially noticeable. it would be nice to see snyder lay off on the slo-mo a bit tho, the final fight in particular would have benefitted from a bit of speed and realism, especially considering the nature of the participants attire. and while its the negatives that stand out the most, the overall experience was fine, just not necessarily alan moore's 'watchmen'; it wasnt great, but it wasnt awful either. it was just "ok", which is probably the most disappointing thing of all.