A pre-second viewing look back...
As I noted in my last entry under "Idle Observation", you may have noticed that after my Watchmen "Comic vs. Film" themed rant in March (an entry written before the movie's release, recommending that people read the graphic novel first - a recommendation based solely on a "feeling" about the upcoming film based on trailers, clips etc), I never actually got around to giving my opinion on the film. Well, since it is now just under a week before the UK DVD release date, I figured that now is a good time for me to finally get that down - though I should point out now that I will mostly be critiquing, not formally reviewing and therefore will be saying little of the actual storyline (though you've all read it since my last post, right? *wink*). Of course, I will now have the benefit of hindsight, which some may argue is unfair on the movie, since the cinematic experience and the first time "Wow factor" often diminish over time - but I feel, in this case, this is acceptable as no second viewing has yet been undertaken and since, with this particular film, I began thinking over its every detail almost as soon as I left the theatre, making notes along the way. Makes me sound like a lunatic, I'm sure, but trust me; it was the natural reaction for any moderate - large Watchmen fan.
So, I hear you ask, how do I feel Zack Snyder's vision shaped up? A complete disaster from start to finish, right? Well, actually, to his credit - no, not totally. *Gasp* I know!
"But I read your previous rant - what about the edits? The background detail? The thriving sense of a real, though alternative, New York city with living characters and activities, surely that can't be there?" - Well, to be honest, it's not. Not really. But not despite Snyder's best efforts. There are nods here, there and everywhere - newspaper headlines, magazine covers, great sets and things in the background for fans to notice. However, whilst it helps create a bit of an all round atmosphere, a lot of it is real blink and you'll miss it stuff. It's a commendable attempt by all means, but other than providing nice shot dressing it's not particularly enhancing to the movie viewing experience, unless you're able to scan through it all in slow motion (which I'm sure Zack Snyder would love, since we know how much he likes slow motion). The background characters also take a definite backseat, several of them being cut or making only non-speaking appearances that fresh viewers would think nothing of, but this is understandable given the time limits imposed. However, the very presence of such characters means that there may be hope for them to receive more screen time in a future fan pleasing Director's Cut, which is definitely good news.
Aside from these (to be fair, probably impossible to capture) little details though, there are also some more noticeably strange directorial choices; for example, the expansion (and in several cases, of course, slow motioning) of every fight scene and the decision to make these fight scenes ultra-violent. Where in the comic it was a bloody nose here, a knock-out there, on the big screen these have become a smashed face or an obliterated limb. I'm not normally one to complain about this sort of thing, but Watchmen is a movie that could actually benefit from some cut-aways that leave things to the imagination. In fact, so much emphasis is placed on blood spattering in some of the first fights that some of the more violent instances from the comic, such as a man receiving a gas propelled grappling hook to the chest, when seen onscreen actually seem fairly tame in comparison to one of Nite Owl II's bone smashing punches. In one scene, they even go out of their way to re-write how Rorschach disposes of a foe, adding blood where there wasn't blood before, in a way that seems strangely pointless. This doesn't detract from Snyder's storytelling though, so much as just confuse anybody who has read the comic, making them think; "I don't remember it being quite like that".
Now, this may sound fairly negative so far, so why am I not berating the movie and saying it was a total cock-up? Well, the answer to that is that in order to assess Watchmen as a movie, one has to judge whether it works as just that - a comprehensible and enjoyable piece of storytelling in the cinematic medium that, whilst it will never be the same as the comic, at least stays loyal to the essentials of its plot and tone. And it does... up until a point - literally, a chronological point. Sure, there are subplots missing and yes, there's a bizarre amount of gore, but as far in as the first 90 minutes I still found myself having a pretty good time. Directorial choices aside, seeing the characters brought to the screen was an exciting experience, the pace of the story was good and the overall tone seemed to be about right. There were some flashy and over the top moments in the fight scenes, but generally this didn't have the feel of being just another stupid Hollywood blockbuster. However, Watchmen is 160 minutes long, which - it would seem - must have been at least an hour too short. Oddly though, Snyder's reaction to this seems to suggest not only that he was worried about how to fit everything in, but also that he felt the established pace and tone of the first two acts could not possibly continue without the audience getting bored.
From the moment that Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II decide to come out of retirement by donning their costumes and taking the Owl ship out for a spin, there seems to be a sudden shift in the film's dynamic. It's possible this was inserted in order to reflect how returning to crime fighting allows these characters rediscover their purpose in life, allowing them to step away from the depression that previously dominated their personalities and become more confident and assertive, but the way its delivered simply jars with what precedes it. From the needlessly over-dramatised fire rescue they perform, to the ridicule worthy sex scene that follows (which plays like a horrible soft porn, scored to Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah") there's a sense that Snyder was scared that the start of the movie had been taking itself too seriously. Suddenly the edits and re-writes from the source material start to stand out more and leaps of logic/sudden moments of convenient deduction seem to present themselves with greater frequency. It seems like Snyder is zipping the audience along post-haste, worried that otherwise he might lose their attention as we approach the movie's most controversial departure from the comic. Yes, that re-written ending.
Those of you who have read Watchmen will know its distinctive ending well and, when it was rumoured that Zach Snyder had changed this, fanboys were up in arms. So, without giving away too much - either of the comic or the film, does the new ending work? Well, yes and no. The essential bare bones structure of the Watchmen ending is that - since the story is set in an alternate 1985 - in order to end the never-ending stand-off between the USA and the USSR, which seems set to bring the world to the brink of nuclear war, the story's villain reveals that he believes he is actually trying to save the world by finding a way to shock the Earth into becoming a united front. The movie, in its own way, keeps this central theme intact and, through several small re-writes/removals along the way, makes it internally seem to make some sense. However, since the whole final act is somewhat rushed, and since we don't really know anything about the civilians of New York (tying again to the removal of background characters) who, in the comic, play a crucial role in bringing home the story's final scenes, we don't really get the gravitas of situation or sense the constrasting horror and admiration that could be gleaned from what the villain has/hasn't accomplished, or who he has/hasn't hurt in the process. Some of the comic's vital dialogue exchanges are removed in favour of yet more silly fighting (which now seems fuelled less by gore and more by the Hollywood school of wire work) and, overall, the whole thing just doesn't hit as heavily as it should. Plus, when you stop to think about it too much outside the theatre (as anybody who's read the source material naturally finds themselves doing), the re-written ending has a bit of a flaw. Whilst the comic focuses on how only an unknown and baffling threat could scare the world into the unison, the film chooses a known scapegoat to pin the threat on, and one who - before this point - is seen (as much as politics would see things) as being very much allied to the US. Surely this would just make the USSR and its supporters even more pissed off with America for being the ones to provide civilisation with a massive global threat?
Overall, Watchmen would have perhaps been better handled as something like a 5 part mini-series. Something that would keep all of its layers and tangents in place and could flow at the sort of pace that Snyder's first 90 minutes did without having to worry about time constraints. Because, when one reflects, it's not just the ending that suffers. Not enough time is spent on the story's best reveals (who's under Rorschach's mask doesn't seem to be a mystery for longer than five minutes, the mystery of Silk Spectre II's parentage is dealt with all too speedily and the revelation of the villain barely even registers) and, despite serving as focal points, at least two of the central characters, Rorschach and Dr Manhattan, don't get the full fleshing out they deserve. Does a fresh viewer, unaware of the comic, really get a feel for how Dr Manhattan experiences time? Is there any evidence of Rorschach's sly ingenuity, surveying out every room he enters and removing any useful materials that could later be used for weaponry or sustenance? Or, more importantly, do viewers get a full sense of his unflinching and uncompromising viewpoint on crime and the soul crushing effect his stories can have on those who choose to see the world more liberally? I'd say probably not.
To sum up then: a fair effort from Zack Snyder, but in the end perhaps Watchmen just isn't right for the screen, or - if it is - perhaps just not in this format. When I left the cinema I probably would have given it 3 1/2 out of 5 for the general experience, but I fear on future viewings, that could sadly slip lower.
