It may seem rather peculiar that a movie that stays so close to an accomplished work of art could end up being so mediocre and unmemorable but not when one considers what is really required in a real film adaptation. The fact that graphic novels practically provide moving storyboards can make a director think it might be enough to just lazily try to replicate the images on screen. True adaptation, faithful or not, is not just about visually filming the descriptions of its source but also about filmmakers providing their own personal interpretation of the characters and story. Robert Rodriguez in his faithful film version of Sin City got it right because he treated the inherent drama in his pulp story as seriously as his admiration for the pictures prepared for him by its source. Watchmen sadly provides a textbook example of an adaptation where mindlessly faithful reverence of a comic book has drained out the potential for a singular, focused dramatic vision.
Bottom line: Mediocre at best.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Al Barger
With due respect, Moviejohn is all wet. The Watchmen movie is brilliantly done, and in fact distinctly a little bit better than the Alan Moore comic books.
A lot of folks seem to get themselves all hung up trying to watch a movie based on famous source material. What the hell does "slavishly" following mean? There's no way Snyder could win with some people. He'd either be dismissed for being too close to the comic book or for straying from the source and betraying the original vision.
But there's not a damn thing "lazy" about the making of this movie. There's Gibbons pen and ink comic book drawings, then there's brilliance with which the image turn into moving three dimensional things. Even just the scenes of Dr Manhattan in the lab were things of beauty.
The acting was perfectly good and in a couple of cases outstanding. I just wish we could have seen more of Rorschach without the mask, cause Haley is really good. But then, he had the most interesting and beloved character to work with.
I've never seen Malik in anything else, but she did fine here. I'm not expecting her to win an Oscar - but it's a comic book character, not Shakespeare. There's only so much that acting can do for a character that ain't that deep.
Plus, the ending was clearly a major improvement over the alien octopus from Outer Space. This really made it zing.
2 - handyguy
Worst movie of the century, except for 300. Who directed that one...?
Well, actually Mamma Mia! and Sex and the City may be slightly worse. And Speed Racer is the worst movie of the millennium. Come to think of it, there have been several memorably awful movies the last year or two.
But the violence in Watchmen is genuinely vile, and not in an 'artistic' way. The parts that aren't disgusting are laughable. Sometimes, the disgusting parts are laughable too.
As has been pointed out, if the rest of the movie were as good as the opening credits, that would have been something worth seeing.
I did rather like the origin flashback of Dr. Manhattan, and Billy Crudup's sweet, beautiful voice is always welcome. And Jackie Earle Haley is excellent, but who wants to sit through his nauseating origin flashback? Or the godawful prison riot scenes? Yikes.
A 70% drop at the boxoffice in its second week, and not at all surprising.