Thursday March 05, 2009

Movie review: Watchmen

Yesterday I went to see "Watchmen" the movie. I had been looking forward to it for quite a while. Actually, ever since I started to see some footage of it a year or so ago.

You see, I've read the graphic novel a really long time ago, back in the 80s (I know, dating myself here) and it blew me away. It was one of best comics (sorry, graphic novel) I ever had the chance to read. Not very original, I know, since it did that to millions of other readers. There have been talks of adapting it for the silver screen for years. Terry Gilliam worked on it. I followed all this closely. To me it seemed impossible to turn this into a movie and do it justice. I believed that of "V for Vendetta" (another great Alan Moore graphic novel)  and "The Lord of the Rings" as well.  As I'm sure you are aware, both of these have since been ported to the screen, one with spectacular success (I still remember how my jaw hit the floor the first time I saw "The fellowship of the ring"), and the other with mixed results.

Anyway, back to "Watchmen". Zack Snyder, the director, is a notorious fan of the books. Actually he even stated that he didn't think the movie could be done and he accepted the job only to make sure that no one would screw that one up. And it sure showed in all the early footage I saw. I got very excited waiting for the movie because every scene I saw in these previews seemed to come straight out of the book. Bottom line, I couldn't wait to see the end result, and went yesterday with fairly high expectations.

So, let's cut to the chase, was it any good? Let me put it this way: To me that movie is nothing short of a miracle! They did something I really believed to be impossible. The book is on the screen. Plain and simple. And I enjoyed every single minutes of it (all 163 of them). If you're a fan of the book, it's your dream come true, or as close to it as Hollywood could allow it. The characters and the visuals are perfect, straight out of the book despite an update of some costumes. The action scenes rock (although the level of gore here and there was a bit much, specially since it seemed rather gratuitous to me) and the dialogs are verbatim. Of course there are cuts, we knew that there is just too much material for a single movie, even a 3h one, but the core of the story is there, mostly intact.

Did I say "mostly"? Yes, because of the second fear that we all have when they make a movie out of one of our favorite books: changes! Hollywood doesn't seem to be able to leave a good story alone and always has to add its 2 cents. More often than not they do more damage than good, and the aforementioned "V for Vendetta" is a good example of that. In Watchmen there are a few minor changes and a major one. The minor ones are no big deal even if sometimes you can't help but wonder "why?". The major one affects the ending (I believe it has been the subject of many discussions already) and is a bit harder to swallow. It's not that bad in the sense that it does manage to keep the spirit and meaning intended by Alan Moore. And I vaguely understand what the film makers were trying to do. But still, I can't help but wonder why they couldn't keep the original one. Oh well, no biggie, the story still works. So if you've read and loved the book, go see that movie, and my guess is you'll be very happy you did.

But what if you don't know anything about the book? That's a toughy. Maybe you should start by reading it? Seriously, that's not a bad idea. First because it is a great graphic novel and it's really worth reading. Second, because I do believe it is very hard to understand what's going on based on the movie alone. The story is so complex, there are so many characters, most of them with 2 identities (super-hero business, you know). So many back stories, so many relationships that the movie had to skim over a lot of that and assume later that you did get everything and remember everything. I went with my girlfriend who had no prior knowledge of the book, and I had to clarify quite a few things during the movie. Also, she didn't enjoy the movie that much, in part because of the gore and overall grimness of the story, but also because of all the confusion.

There are quite a few key points and facts that are not made clear in the movie but are crucial to understanding the story. Careful, minor spoilers ahead. The Keen Act for instance is covered way too quickly, and most people won't understand why Night Owl retired and why Rorschach is wanted by the police. The fact that Dr Manahattan is named "Jon Osterman" is also not clearly established and that can make one of the key pieces of dialog at the end rather puzzling. The fact that there were 2 Night Owls and 2 Silk Spectres could have been more clearly explained, specially considering how crucial one of these facts is to the story. Most of these problems are due to the fact that there just wasn't enough time to go over all the necessary backstories in enough details. And it is my hope that there will be an extended cut on DVD/Blu-Ray in the future as they did for The Lord of the rings. I'm guessing an extra 20 minutes or so would have helped tremenduously.

I'm really curious to hear more about this from people who had no prior knowledge of the book. I have a few friends whom I know will go see it and fit the profile, but feel free to tell me your own thoughts.

One last note before the conclusion: If you're old enough to remember the 80s, there are quite a lot of references in this movie, some of which are quite clever (see if you can spot the "1984" Apple commercial for instance). Same with the soundtrack, it is a real tribute to the era this book was written and, to me, was a perfect match.

Bottom line: A near perfect translation of the graphic novel IF (and that's a big if) you had read it (and loved it). Jury's still out if you haven't, but my feeling is that you'd find it a rather good but confusing movie.