Alan Moore once said that Watchmen was designed to be unfilmable and for many years it seemed that way. Often considered the greatest work of graphic fiction the Watchmen project has passed through many hands but ultimately was brought to the screen by 300 director Zack Snyder - very much the fan boy – in 2009, with Moore's name noticeably absent in the credits.
The plot is incredibly complex, given its 12 issue arc and unique narrative style that covers many interweaving, simultaneous events. The essential premise lies in bringing the notion of the super-hero into the real world for dramatic effect and social commentary. We enter a world, in 1985, that has grown up with masked vigilante's and in recent times outlawed them. America has employed a super man to win the Vietnam war and is now locked in a cold war with Russia, using “Dr Manhattan” (a name alluding to the project that created the A-Bomb) as its nuclear deterrent - a man who, given god like powers finds himself drifting away from any emotional connection with the world. (It is interesting that the heroes of Watchmen are either of lesser ability than your average Spider-man or far beyond). Now some of the retired Watchmen are being killed off leading the survivors to seek out the plot behind it all. We are witness to a variety of ex-vigilante characters, humans with complex personal issues; one insane and fascistic pushed forth by personal demons, one pursuing his twisted Utilitarian beliefs, some others broken men who feel powerless without their alter egos, each trying to cope with the situation and their day to day lives and interactions as Armageddon ensues.
Some of the notions of Watchmen are incredibly powerful and will startle those who think comics are child's play. Watching it before ever reading the book I was torn between seeing issues in the construction of the film, and being very attracted the it's unique interpretations of the super hero and view of society. This is a film review so it's not right to get hung up on issues concerning the graphic novel but it is significant that I felt I needed to read the book after seeing the film (and have waited to before writing this review). I imagine many others who have not read the book will feel the same, watching the movie. There is a clear sense you're missing out, even after the mammoth 160 odd minutes.
Snyder's concentration on the surface level of the film means we get a very impressive looking film. There is a superficial attempt to recreate the book in using it for story board design and it can definitely be considered a faithful adaptation in that respect (not one to rival Sin City however – but then they had Frank Miller on board) and many moments are quite satisfyingly brought to life, through careful art design and cinematography. However past this outer layer it doesn't come close to addressing the political and psychological issues that are the strength of the book but nonetheless alludes to them frequently in its sheer premise - built around this humanisation of the super hero and the whole cold war setting. This serves to make the film seem very self important as we don't get the insight, satire and analysis of Moore's work. It is a criticism of Snyder's ability that he is short sighted enough to put such staggering effort into the visual details whilst missing out on so much of what Watchmen is about. The focus on visual style also poses problems when the highly graphic content comes into play. Snyder fought to make it R-rated to accommodate the story in its entirety but seems unsatisfied with this, often amplifying the violence of less significant moments and this becomes very much an issue when dealing with Sally Jupiter's rape, for instance, where the obsession with the style seems to detract from the seriousness of the situation, making it rather troublesome to watch. On a smaller level the fact that we do, at its heart have a very engaging plot means the continuous instances of ridiculous, slow-mo fight scenes gets very tired and I found myself getting very bored of costumed clobbering when I wanted to see the story unfold, and certainly with a film of this length any unnecessary screen time needs to be kept down. This hyper-stylisation also detracts from the realism of Alan Moore's Watchmen, which is a pretty integral basis to its premise, after all. Perhaps this is an attempt to accommodate an audience expecting a super hero film, which suggests a lack of conviction for someone taking on the Watchmen film.
However, I will say a reason why the film manages to engage despite these problems is the fine handling of the casting. Crudup handles the emotional drift of Dr Manhatten very well with the aid of ever capable visual effects and the rest of the cast are very fitting for their graphic counterparts.
Ultimately there's going to be an issue in the debate as to whether you're a fan of the source or not - and moreover if you do like Watchmen it's highly probable you're obsessed. The film certainly has merits, largely because the strengths of Alan Moore's Watchmen are, even in diluted form, still pretty remarkable. Indeed, if this had been written as a film it would be considered incredibly imaginative and a great achievement just for its original viewpoint on the genre. For the viewer of Snyder's take on Watchmen, however there is a clear sense you are missing the story no matter how well certain aspects and scenes are realised in their cinematic format - there are great moments but ultimately they are by necessity a mere interpretation of the text that is “unfilmable”.
Not all the creative decisions are in vein (even the fairly significant changing of the ending is not the worst move) but style-over-substance approach to transitioning the text ultimately means it is flawed in its realisation and even on its own terms the film suffers but it is still a spectacle worth watching. I would just recommend that if you are planning on ever reading the book you should read it first, and that's tough to pre-empt because, I'd say, there's a good chance the film will leave you wanting more.
