As it has become nearly impossible in the last few months to move in any direction without bumping into a mention of the new
Watchmen movie, I'm not going to bother re-hashing what everyone already knows. If you're one of the few people who have no idea that the
Watchmen was originally a graphic novel then
please get caught up.
We up to speed? Awesome...moving on.
I can't claim to have ever waited in line to see a midnight showing (though I have heard tell that it's quite the experience) nor am I the type to frantically count down an anticipated film opening. That said I have been eager to see the final result of a production that all involved claim is indescribable and which the writer of the original source material (Mr. Alan Moore) says he is
"spitting venom all over".
There have been several great reviews on the film written by those who have NOT had the pleasure of reading the original graphic novel (David Eng at the
REELAddict.com has an interesting take). It seems there is an overall feeling that in trying to stay true to the source material the film may have overlooked some of the key issues and alienated the general audience. That the change in medium necessitates a change in how the same information can be relayed to the audience is often misunderstood by fans of the original work as an attempt to improve that which the source work did so beautifully. This fear (in my opinion) has caused the filmmakers to focus on re-creating the wrong aspects of the original artwork; thus managing to alienate both the general public AND fans of the original.
While the source material is both violent and sexual it seems that in its re-creation the production team chose to focus too much on those aspects of the novel. In the scheme of things does Jon walking around nude for the whole movie (eliciting chuckles from the audience every time his penis appears onscreen) really make a difference? No. Without giving too much away there are other scenes which contributed to the audience's opinion of those behind the killings which, had they been included, would have made the final moral dilemma of the film more disturbing. For a work whose major selling point was that it made you think, reducing it to its most commercial elements (i.e. the look, violence, sexuality and "cool one liners") was-- in my opinion-- a mistake.
Are the effects cool? Yes. Does it tell an interesting story? Sure. Do the actors try to re-create the complex cast of characters present in the novel? Absolutely. Do they succeed? In most cases I would say no.
As much as I am drawing a negative picture of the film, when I spoke to my friends about the film one thing was made abundantly clear: while the issues we raised were many and varied, Jackie Earle Haley made it worth the price of admission. There is an overpowering quiet to Haley's Rorshach that takes over the screen whenever he appears and manages to create a three dimensional character which seems more real (and thus much more disturbing) than any of the others. While in the novel it is clear that the character of Walter Kovacs/Rorshach has intense psychological issues, Haley's portrayal of this broken man forced me to re-evaluate my reading of him from the novel.
Now THAT is an accomplishment.
In the end if you're interested in a "cool comic book movie" than by all means, go see this film. It is certainly doing well so many of you may have already seen it. If you've read the original source material you may be surprised by how much of the film is faithful to the novel. If you haven't, just sit back and enjoy what will likely shock you a little in its graphic nature. Ultimately I was surprised and not as disappointed as I expected to be; plus, I have a new found interest in our friend Mr. Hayley, who can next be seen in
Shutter Island with Mark Ruffalo and Sir. Ben Kingsley.
Oh yeah, and no matter what you decide about the film...
go read the novel!
